Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

— S. 8(1) — Application for reference filed subsequent to filing of objection to grant of ex parte interim injunction to plaintiff — Maintainability of — Acquiescence to jurisdiction of court/waiver of right to arbitration — Inference of, due to filing of said reply — Held, a party cannot be said to have waived its right to invoke arbitration clause or acquiesced itself to jurisdiction of court before its filing of ``first statement on the substance of the dispute'' — To invoke restriction to reference under S. 8(1) due to filing of ``first statement on the substance of the dispute'', what is necessary is disclosure of the entire substance in the main proceeding itself and not taking part in the supplemental proceeding — Disclosure of defence for purpose of opposing prayer for interim injunction would not mean that substance of the dispute has already been disclosed in the main proceeding — Hence, filing of reply to interim injunction application could not be a ground to refuse plea of appellants that suit should be referred to Arbitral Tribunal — More so, when in said reply appellants did not submit themselves to the jurisdiction of court or waive their right, (2006) 7 SCC 275-A

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

— S. 8(1) — Expression ``first statement on the substance of the dispute'' contained in — Meaning of — Contradistinguished with the expression ``written statement'' — Held, means submission of party to the jurisdiction of the judicial authority, (2006) 7 SCC 275-B

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

— Ss. 75 to 78, 94 and 95 — ``Supplemental'' and ``incidental'' proceedings — Distinction between, noticed — The two proceedings compared with main proceeding, (2006) 7 SCC 275-C

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

— S. 8 — Power under, to refer parties to arbitration — Held, judicial authority is statutorily mandated to refer the matter to arbitration if conditions precedent therefor are satisfied — What has to be looked into therefor is whether the subject-matter of the dispute is covered by the arbitration agreement or not — However, said power to be exercised if a party applies for reference not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute — Power under S. 8 compared with power under S. 34 of the repealed Act of 1940 dealing with stay of legal proceedings — Effect of pendency of proceedings before judicial authority on commencement or continuance of arbitration proceedings and conclusion thereof, under the 1996 Act, stated, (2006) 7 SCC 275-D

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

— S. 8 — Application under, for reference — Maintainability of — Service of notice on other party under arbitration agreement, held, is not mandatory for maintainability of said application — Said stage was yet to be reached — What was necessary at this stage was existence of an arbitration agreement, (2006) 7 SCC 275-E

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

— S. 8 — Reference to arbitration — Application for — Maintainability of — Causes of action involved, whether outside the purview of arbitration — Company C entering into a contract with a partnership firm to avail its services — Termination of contract by C as one the partners of the said firm was guilty of overcharging freight by misrepresentation to C — Show-cause notice issued by C to blacklist the firm — Challenge to said action in suit filed by firm — Held, both the causes of action i.e. illegal termination of contract and blacklisting of firm arose out of the terms of the contract — Hence, S. 8 attracted — Application filed thereunder, maintainable, (2006) 7 SCC 275-F

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

— S. 8 — Application under, for reference — Maintainability of — Determination of — Irrelevant consideration taken into account for — Company C entering into a contract with a partnership firm to avail its services — Termination of contract by C as one of the partners of the said firm was guilty of overcharging freight by misrepresentation to C — Said partner acted on behalf of firm — Subsequent resignation of that partner, held, was irrelevant for purpose of consideration in regard to maintainability of application under S. 8, (2006) 7 SCC 275-G

Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

— Ss. 8, 16, 45 & 54 — Domestic arbitration vis-à-vis international arbitration — Difference in language used by Parliament while dealing with, noticed — Ss. 8 and 16 compared with Ss. 45 and 54, (2006) 7 SCC 275-H

Constitution of India

— Art. 19(1)(g) — Blacklisting of respondent firm — Challenge to, on ground that no notice issued prior thereto — Sustainability of — Only show-cause notice in regard to blacklisting issued — Final decision in relation thereto yet to be taken — Hence held, finding of High Court that firm blacklisted without any notice, not proper, (2006) 7 SCC 275-I

Practice and Procedure

Costs

— Appeals allowed with costs — Counsel fee quantified at Rs 15,000, (2006) 7 SCC 275-J