Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, HMT Watches Ltd., filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City, on applications filed by the respondents under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents had filed applications in pending suits (A.S. Nos. 63/2002, 64/2002, 65/2002, 69/2002, 70/2002, 71/2002, 81/2002, and 82/2002) seeking appointment of an arbitrator. The petitioner contended that the applications were not maintainable because the respondents had already filed their written statements and the suits had been pending for over a decade. The court examined the provisions of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which requires that an application for reference to arbitration be made before filing of the first statement on the substance of the dispute. The court noted that the respondents had already filed their written statements and the suits were pending for a long time. Therefore, the applications under Section 8 were not maintainable. The court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders. The court held that the applications under Section 8 were not maintainable after the filing of the written statement and after the suits had been pending for over a decade.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Application for Reference to Arbitration - The court considered whether applications under Section 8 for appointment of arbitrator are maintainable after filing of written statement and after suits have been pending for a long time. The court held that Section 8 requires that the application be made before filing of the first statement on the substance of the dispute. Since the respondents had already filed written statements and the suits were pending for over a decade, the applications were not maintainable. (Paras 1-10) B) Arbitration Law - Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Timing of Application - The court held that the application under Section 8 must be made before filing of the first statement on the substance of the dispute. The respondents had already filed written statements and the suits were pending, so the applications were not maintainable. (Paras 1-10) C) Arbitration Law - Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Pending Suits - The court held that Section 8 is not applicable to suits that are already pending at the time of filing of the application. The respondents had filed written statements and the suits were pending for over a decade, so the applications were not maintainable. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applications filed by the respondents under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an arbitrator in pending suits are maintainable after the filing of the written statement and after the suits have been pending for a long time.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the impugned orders. The court held that the applications under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 were not maintainable after the filing of the written statement and after the suits had been pending for over a decade.
Law Points
- Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996 applies only before filing of first statement on substance of dispute
- not to pending suits
- Section 8 cannot be invoked after filing of written statement
- Section 8 is not applicable to suits pending at the time of filing of application
- Section 8 requires that the application be made before filing of first statement on substance of dispute
- Section 8 is not a provision for appointment of arbitrator in pending suits
- Section 8 is not a provision for reference to arbitration after filing of written statement
- Section 8 is not a provision for stay of suit
- Section 8 is not a provision for appointment of arbitrator by court
- Section 8 is not a provision for appointment of arbitrator by court in pending suits.
