9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 689X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inion, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... executed between them for supply of diesel engines by the appellant to the respondent for using the same in the diesel gensets. Arbitration clause contained in Article 10.1 of agreement dated 02.07.2007 (copy Annexure P-1) reads as under: - 10.1 Any dispute or difference whatsoever arising between the parties out of or relating to the construction, meaning, scope, operation or effect of this Agreement or the validity or the breach thereof shall be referred to a Sole Arbitrator to be appointed by Greaves. The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties. The venue of arbitration shall be Mumbai. The arbitration proceedings shall, in all other aspects, be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Concil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the High Court on the ground that the appellant has, by moving application for extension of time to file written statement, waived its right to seek arbitration. Hence, this appeal through special leave. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Before further discussion, it is just and proper to refer to relevant provisions of law applicable to the case. Section 5 of the 1996 Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by Part I, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in the said Part of the Act. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the 1996 Act, as it existed prior to 23.10.2015, provided that a judicial authority before whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stance of the dispute and not later than that. In other words, only if in the first statement on the substance of the dispute he does not make such prayer that he is debarred from making that prayer later. Section 8(1) of the New Act is, thus, an Improvement upon the provisions of Section 34 of the old Act . 8. In Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. and another v. Verma Transport Co. (2006) 7 SCC 275, interpreting the expression first statement on the substance of the dispute , this Court has held as under: - 36. The expression first statement on the substance of the dispute contained in Section 8(1) of the 1996 Act must be contradistinguished with the expression written statement . It employs submission of the party to the jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r issue as under: - 19. Where a suit is filed by one of the parties to an arbitration agreement against the other parties to the arbitration agreement, and if the defendants file an application under Section 8 stating that the parties should be referred to arbitration, the court (judicial authority) will have to decide: (i) whether there is an arbitration agreement among the parties; (ii) whether all the parties to the suit are parties to the arbitration agreement; (iii) whether the disputes which are the subject-matter of the suit fall within the scope of arbitration agreement; (iv) whether the defendant had applied under Section 8 of the Act before submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 996 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. 13. From the order impugned, it also reflects that 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-matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
