Filing Certified Copy Of Arbitration Agreement Not Mandatory When Undisputed Agreement Is Already On Record: Gujarat High Court

Justice Maulik J. Shelat held that “Merely because a certified copy of the arbitration agreement was not filed would not render the application under Section 8 invalid, when the agreement containing the arbitration clause was already on record and undisputed”.

Background:

M/s Techtix Engineers (Petitioner) filed a suit for recovery of dues under a work contract executed with Megastone Logipark Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent).The defendants entered appearance and filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC read with section 8 of the Arbitration Act contending that since agreement contained an arbitration clause, the matter should be referred to arbitration. The trial court accepted the defendants' plea and relegated the plaintiff to arbitration. Aggrieved, the petitioner had filed a writ petition.

The petitioner submitted that the application was not maintainable as it was filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC which cannot be invoked to reject a civil suit based on an arbitration clause. It was further contended that the mandatory requirement of filing an original or certified copy of the agreement was not complied with. In the absence of such a copy, the trial court was not authorised to allow the application.

Per contra, the respondent submitted that since the agreement containing the arbitration clause had already been produced, the purpose of section 8(2) as to the existence of the arbitration agreement was met. Therefore, there was no requirement to produce a separate certified copy of the agreement.

Findings:

Rejecting the petitioner's plea, the court observed that it would be too technical an approach to reject an application merely because a certified copy of the arbitration agreement was not produced. It held that “It would be too technical an approach to reject an application under Section 8 merely because a certified copy of the arbitration agreement is not annexed, when the same agreement containing the arbitration clause is already on record and not in dispute.”

The court further observed that although the application was captioned under Order VII Rule 11 read with section 8, the trial court treated it as one under section 8 only. The Court, while agreeing with the approach taken by the trial court, held that “Once the trial court has treated the application as one under Section 8 and not under Order VII Rule 11(d), there is no error or jurisdictional defect. The court rightly exercised its power to refer the parties to arbitration.”

The court observed that when the arbitration agreement produced by the defendant along with the application under section 8 is identical to one produced by the plaintiff and its existence is not disputed by either of the parties, there is no mandatory requirement to file a certified copy of the agreement before an application under section 8 can be maintained.

The court referred to Comed Pharmaceuticals Ltd, where the Gujarat High Court had held that “In the circumstances, when the plaintiff had already produced a copy of a tender document along with the arbitration clause and did not dispute the existence of arbitration agreement, the Ld. Judge was not justified in rejecting the application solely on the ground that the application under Section 8 of the Act was no accompanied by the arbitration agreement in original or by a certified copy thereof ”.

The court further relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in K. Mangayarkarasi where it was held that “Once it is brought to the notice of a civil court that its jurisdiction has been ousted under a special statute, the court must defer to that statutory procedure. The general law must yield to the special law.”

Accordingly, the present petition was dismissed.

Case Title: M/S TECHTIX ENGINEERS Versus MEGASTONE LOGIPARK PVT. LTD. & ORS.

Case Number: R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6878 of 2023

Judgment Date: 07/10/2025

Click Here To Read/Download The Order