2000 (3) TMI 1068 - SC - Companies Law

Whether this Court in appeal can refer the parties to arbitration under the new Act? Held that - The language of Section 8 is peremptory. It is, therefore, obligatory for the Court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of their arbitration agreement. Nothing remains to be decided in the original action or the appeal arising therefrom. There is no question of stay of the proceedings till the arbitration proceedings conclude and the Award becomes final in terms of the provisions of the new Act. All the rights, obligations and remedies of the parties would now be governed by the new Act including the right to challenge the Award. The Court to which the party shall have recourse to challenge the Award would be the Court as defined in clause (e) of Section 2 of the new Act and not the Court to which an application under Section 8 of the new Act is made. An application before a Court under Section 8 merely brings to the Courts notice that the subject matter of the action before it is the subject matter of an arbitration agreement. This would not be such an application as contemplated under Section 42 of the Act as the Court trying the action may or may not have had jurisdiction to try the suit to start with or be the competent Court within the meaning of Section 2 (e) of the new Act. We, therefore, allow the application and would refer the parties to arbitration. No further orders are required in this appeal and it stands disposed of accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Supreme Court can refer parties to arbitration under the new Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Interpretation of Section 8 of the new Act regarding the power to refer parties to arbitration.
3. Obligation of the Court to refer parties to arbitration when there is a valid arbitration agreement in place.

Analysis:
1. The Supreme Court examined the authority to refer parties to arbitration under the new Act, emphasizing the legislative intent to minimize judicial intervention in arbitration proceedings. Section 5 of the Act restricts judicial interference in matters governed by Part I, promoting efficient dispute resolution. The Court considered the provisions of Section 8, which empower a judicial authority to refer parties to arbitration upon application by a party, provided certain conditions are met, including the existence of an arbitration agreement and alignment of subject matters between the dispute and the agreement.

2. The Court delved into the requirements of Section 8, highlighting that the party seeking arbitration must do so before submitting the first statement on the dispute. However, if the party applies for arbitration after the submission, and the other party does not object, the Court can still refer the matter to arbitration. The interpretation of the phrase "subject of an arbitration agreement" was crucial, with the Court determining that the agreement could come into existence during the pendency of the action, not necessarily before it.

3. The Court affirmed that when parties have a valid arbitration agreement meeting the Act's criteria, the Court must refer them to arbitration as per the peremptory language of Section 8. Once referred, all disputes covered by the agreement, and even beyond, would be subject to arbitration proceedings. The Court clarified that the new Act governs all rights, obligations, and remedies of the parties, including the right to challenge the arbitral award. The jurisdiction to challenge the award lies with the defined Court in the Act, not necessarily the Court where the arbitration reference application was made.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the application, obliging the parties to arbitration as per the valid agreement, effectively disposing of the original action without the need for further orders. The judgment underscored the mandatory nature of referring parties to arbitration under the new Act, ensuring adherence to the arbitration agreement's terms and the Act's provisions for efficient dispute resolution.