01Facts
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance concerning a registered Agreement of Sale dated 11 February 2020.
pp. 2–4Defendant No. 1 applied under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, relying on Clause 10 of the agreement, which provided that disputes “may” be referred to arbitration.
pp. 2–4The trial court dismissed the application, holding that it was filed after the written-statement deadline had expired and the written statement had been taken as not filed.
pp. 2–4Defendant No. 1 challenged that order in this revision petition.
pp. 2–402Issues
i.Whether Clause 10 of the agreement required the parties to arbitrate, so that the suit could not be entertained.
pp. 4–5, 8–9ii.Whether the Section 8 application, filed after the relevant deadline, could be entertained.
pp. 3–4, 8–903Law Applied
Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires a party seeking reference to arbitration to apply no later than the date of submitting its first statement on the substance of the dispute.
p. 3The Court also considered the wording of Clause 10: a clause stating that parties “may” refer a dispute to arbitration does not compel them to do so.
pp. 8–9The Court referred to M/s. Bhagyalakshmi Homes LLP v. Smt. Sulekha Verma and Others, Commercial Appeal No. 618/2025, and P. Tarachand v. Seshamal M. Jain and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine Kar 2768, in connection with the timing and waiver principles under Section 8.
pp. 4–6It also noted Prasanna V. Ghotage v. Bharat Earth Movers Limited, W.P. Nos. 1187/2020 and 1133/2020, concerning belated invocation of arbitration and the conduct of a party.
pp. 6–8Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 115
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Section 8
04Reasoning
The Court found that Clause 10 was permissive because it used the word “may”; it therefore did not make arbitration a compulsory prerequisite to filing the suit.
pp. 8–9Independently, the Section 8 application was filed beyond the 90-day period relied on by the trial court, after the written statement had been taken as not filed.
pp. 3–4, 9The Court held that the application was therefore untimely under Section 8 and that the trial court was justified in dismissing it.
pp. 3–4, 905Holding
The Court answered both issues against the petitioner.
p. 9It dismissed the civil revision petition, upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the Section 8 application, and ordered that any pending interlocutory applications stand closed.
p. 9Original Court PDF
SMT. N. KOMALA,vsM/S. SAMRUDDHI HOUSING,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
