Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2016 (12) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (12) TMI 689 - SC - Indian LawsRejection of application moved under Section 5 read with Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, to get the dispute referred to arbitral tribunal - whether filing of an application for extension of time to file written statement before a judicial authority constitutes – ‘submitting first statement on the substance of the dispute’ or not? - Held that:- We find it difficult to agree with the High Court that in the present case merely moving an application seeking further time of eight weeks to file the written statement would amount to making first statement on the substance of the dispute. In our opinion, filing of an application without reply to the allegations of the plaint does not constitute first statement on the substance of the dispute. It does not appear from the language of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the 1996 Act that the Legislature intended to include such a step like moving simple application of seeking extension of time to file written statement as first statement on the substance of the dispute. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as already narrated above, we are unable to hold that the appellant, by moving an application for extension of time of eight weeks to file written statement, has waived right to object to the jurisdiction of judicial authority. Before disposing of application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act the High Court has not looked into questions as to whether there is an agreement between the parties; whether disputes which are subject-matter of the suit fall within the scope of arbitration; and whether the reliefs sought in the suit are those that can be adjudicated and granted in arbitration. In view of the above, we think it just and proper to request the High Court to decide the application afresh in the light of law laid down by this Court in para 19 of the judgment in Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Homes Finance Limited and others (2012 (10) TMI 459 - SUPREME COURT ) except the point, which has already been answered in the present case by us.
|