CR-116-2021(O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 232 M/S JAI NARAIN CASTING NARINDERA CASTING CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate Mr. Tarun Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Farha Mr. Gautam Dutt, for respondent Mr. Karanvir Jindal, Advocate for respondent no.4. (Through Video Conferencing) TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The 23.12.2020, Annexure P in CS no.541, dated Casting and others the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 allowed, and the matter in lease deed dated 2. As per facts apparent on record, in brief, 19.06.2018 was entered into between the parties, whereby the petitioner was leased out an respondents for a period of twenty As per para 36 of the (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Decided On: M/S JAI NARAIN CASTING Versus NARINDERA CASTING PRIVATE LIMITED CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate with Mr. Tarun Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Farhad Kohli, Advocate for Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr. Karanvir Jindal, Advocate for respondent no.4. (Through Video Conferencing) TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral) The revision petition has been filed , Annexure P-12, passed by Civil Judge , dated 25.11.2020, titled M/s Jai Narain Casting and others, whereby the respondent’s application the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, , and the matter was referred to the Arbitrator concerned as mentioned in lease deed dated 19.06.2018. As per facts apparent on record, in brief, was entered into between the parties, whereby the petitioner was n Induction Furnace Unit (for short, respondents for a period of twenty-four months As per para 36 of the lease deed, ‘if any dispute arises between the parties IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-116-2021(O&M) Decided On: 14.05.2025 ....PETITIONER(s) PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA with for respondent no.4. (Through Video Conferencing) petition has been filed against order dated , passed by Civil Judge(Junior Division), Amloh M/s Jai Narain Casting v. Narindera ’s application under Section 8 of (for short, ‘the 1996 Act’), was was referred to the Arbitrator concerned as mentioned As per facts apparent on record, in brief, a lease deed dated was entered into between the parties, whereby the petitioner was Induction Furnace Unit (for short, ‘the Furnace’) by the four months with effect from 18.06.2018. if any dispute arises between the parties ...PETITIONER(s) against order dated , Amloh . Narindera under Section 8 of , was was referred to the Arbitrator concerned as mentioned lease deed dated was entered into between the parties, whereby the petitioner was by the . if any dispute arises between the parties Aman Dua 2025.05.19 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CR-116-2021(O&M) regarding the above mentioned the arbitration tribunal under Indian Arbitration Act, 1996 shall be bound to decide the matter within 3 months for eleven months 31.08.2020, Annexure P not handover the Furnace lessor/respondents restraining the respondents from causing any interference in its possession. Upon receiving notice of the suit Section 8 of the plaint. The same was allowe Amloh, vide impugned order dated filing the instant petition. 3. Learned counsel for deed/agreement entered into between the an arbitration clause bearing no.36 terms and conditions for a 31.07.2021. There being a binding arbitration clause between the parties, t suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner has been rightly dismissed by the trial Court. 4. Heard. 5. In view of the facts apparent on record, establishing existence of a binding arbitration agreement between the parties, it was mandatory for the trial Court to refer the dispute which has been rightly done vid recording as under: (O&M) -2- regarding the above mentioned said lease then the dispute shall be referred to the arbitration tribunal under Indian Arbitration Act, 1996 shall be bound to decide the matter within 3 months for eleven months, i.e., upto 31.07.2021, vide , Annexure P-6. Despite expiry of the lease period, petitioner did not handover the Furnace with building, plant and machinery to the /respondents. Instead, the petitioner filed restraining the respondents from causing any interference in its possession. Upon receiving notice of the suit, the respondents filed an application under Section 8 of the 1996 Act and Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of plaint. The same was allowed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Amloh, vide impugned order dated 23.12.2020 filing the instant petition. Learned counsel for the respondent deed/agreement entered into between the parties an arbitration clause bearing no.36. The lease was extended on the exist terms and conditions for a further period of eleven months ending on . There being a binding arbitration clause between the parties, t suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner rightly dismissed by the trial Court. Heard. In view of the facts apparent on record, establishing existence of a binding arbitration agreement between the parties, it was mandatory for the trial Court to refer the dispute arising between which has been rightly done vide impugned order dated recording as under: said lease then the dispute shall be referred to the arbitration tribunal under Indian Arbitration Act, 1996 and arbitrator shall be bound to decide the matter within 3 months’. The lease was extended vide communication/e-mail dated . Despite expiry of the lease period, petitioner did building, plant and machinery to the filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from causing any interference in its possession. , the respondents filed an application under ule 11 of CPC for rejection of the by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), 23.12.2020, which has been challenged by respondents contend that the lease parties, dated 19.06.2018, contains . The lease was extended on the existing period of eleven months ending on . There being a binding arbitration clause between the parties, the suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner is not maintainable, and In view of the facts apparent on record, establishing existence of a binding arbitration agreement between the parties, it was mandatory for the rising between the parties to the Arbitrator, e impugned order dated 23.12.2020, by said lease then the dispute shall be referred to and arbitrator . The lease was extended mail dated . Despite expiry of the lease period, petitioner did building, plant and machinery to the suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from causing any interference in its possession. , the respondents filed an application under the by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), challenged by contend that the lease contains ing period of eleven months ending on he not maintainable, and In view of the facts apparent on record, establishing existence of a binding arbitration agreement between the parties, it was mandatory for the , , by Aman Dua 2025.05.19 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CR-116-2021(O&M) 8. contains binding conditions upon the plaintiff to settle any dispute with the defendants before the Arbitration mentioned in the said dee 9. provides in the matter which is the subject of a arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies, not later than when submitting his statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to the arbitration. In the authority titled as M/s Sundaram Finance Limited and another Versus T. Thankam 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) Page 920 (SC), it has been held that where an authority in te of section 8 of the Arbitration Act moves to the court for referring the parties to arbitration, it shall be obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. In the authority Mrs. Khattar & Anr. Vs. Shiv Khera, 2017 (3) R.C.R (Civil), 277, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a case where there is arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, it is obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arb terms of their arbitration agreement and nothing remains to be decided by the court in the original action after an application is made, except to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in autho Manager, Magma Leasing and Finance Limited and another Vs. Potluri Madhavilata and another, (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 103. In authority Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Jasbir 525, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that where there is agreement entered into between the parties stipulating an arbitration clause and one of the party approaches the court for the reference of the dispute to an arbitrator in terms of t the dispute arisen between the parties to the arbitrator. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in authority M/s Jagdish (O&M) -3- 8. From the perusal of said lease deed, it is clear that it contains binding conditions upon the plaintiff to settle any dispute with the defendants before the Arbitration mentioned in the said deed. 9. Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides that judicial authority before which an action is brought in the matter which is the subject of a arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies, not later than when submitting his statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to the arbitration. In the authority titled as M/s Sundaram Finance Limited and another Versus T. Thankam 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) Page 920 (SC), it has been held that where an authority in te of section 8 of the Arbitration Act moves to the court for referring the parties to arbitration, it shall be obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. In the authority Mrs. Khattar & Anr. Vs. Shiv Khera, 2017 (3) R.C.R (Civil), 277, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a case where there is arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, it is obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arb terms of their arbitration agreement and nothing remains to be decided by the court in the original action after an application is made, except to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in autho Manager, Magma Leasing and Finance Limited and another Vs. Potluri Madhavilata and another, (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 103. In authority Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Jasbir Singh @ Jasveer Singh, 2009 (4) RCR (Civil), 525, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that where there is agreement entered into between the parties stipulating an arbitration clause and one of the party approaches the court for the reference of the dispute to an arbitrator in terms of the said clause, it becomes mandatory duty of the court to refer the dispute arisen between the parties to the arbitrator. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in authority M/s Jagdish From the perusal of said lease deed, it is clear that it contains binding conditions upon the plaintiff to settle any dispute with the defendants before the Arbitration mentioned in Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that judicial authority before which an action is brought in the matter which is the subject of a arbitration agreement shall, if a party so applies, not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to the arbitration. In the authority titled as M/s Sundaram Finance Limited and another Versus T. Thankam 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) Page 920 (SC), it has been held that where an authority in terms of section 8 of the Arbitration Act moves to the court for referring the parties to arbitration, it shall be obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of the agreement entered into between the parties. In the authority Mrs. Hema Khattar & Anr. Vs. Shiv Khera, 2017 (3) R.C.R (Civil), 277, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a case where there is arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, it is obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of their arbitration agreement and nothing remains to be decided by the court in the original action after an application is made, except to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. Similar view has been held by the Hon'ble High Court in authority Branch Manager, Magma Leasing and Finance Limited and another Vs. Potluri Madhavilata and another, (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 103. In authority Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Singh @ Jasveer Singh, 2009 (4) RCR (Civil), 525, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that where there is agreement entered into between the parties stipulating an arbitration clause and one of the party approaches the court for the reference of the dispute to an arbitrator in terms he said clause, it becomes mandatory duty of the court to refer the dispute arisen between the parties to the arbitrator. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in authority M/s Jagdish From the perusal of said lease deed, it is clear that it contains binding conditions upon the plaintiff to settle any dispute with the defendants before the Arbitration mentioned in Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that judicial authority before which an action is brought in the matter which is the subject of a arbitration agreement shall, first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to the arbitration. In the authority titled as M/s Sundaram Finance Limited and another Versus T. Thankam 2015 (2) RCR (Civil) rms of section 8 of the Arbitration Act moves to the court for referring the parties to arbitration, it shall be obligatory for the court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of the agreement Hema Khattar & Anr. Vs. Shiv Khera, 2017 (3) R.C.R (Civil), 277, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in a case where there is arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties, it itration in terms of their arbitration agreement and nothing remains to be decided by the court in the original action after an application is made, except to refer the dispute to an arbitrator. Similar view rity Branch Manager, Magma Leasing and Finance Limited and another Vs. Potluri Madhavilata and another, (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 103. In authority Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. and Singh @ Jasveer Singh, 2009 (4) RCR (Civil), 525, the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that where there is agreement entered into between the parties stipulating an arbitration clause and one of the party approaches the court for the reference of the dispute to an arbitrator in terms he said clause, it becomes mandatory duty of the court to refer the dispute arisen between the parties to the arbitrator. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in authority M/s Jagdish Aman Dua 2025.05.19 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CR-116-2021(O&M) Raj & Brothers Vs. Jagdish Raj & Ors., 2003 (1) Civil Court Cases, 36 opposite party for referring the matter to arbitration in terms of arbitration agreement, the court thereafter cannot decide the application U/O 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, as nothing further is required to be do the Arbitrator. 6. The order is well with the statutory provisions as well as the settled law. It does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction. 7. In view thereof, the petition accordingly stands dismissed. 8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. 14.05.2025 Ad (O&M) -4- Raj & Brothers Vs. Jagdish Raj & Ors., 2003 (1) Civil Court Cases, 367, has held that once an application is made by the opposite party for referring the matter to arbitration in terms of arbitration agreement, the court thereafter cannot decide the application U/O 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, as nothing further is required to be done by the court except for referring the matter to the Arbitrator. The order is well-reasoned and with the statutory provisions as well as the settled law. It does not suffer from any error of law or jurisdiction. In view thereof, the petition accordingly stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? Raj & Brothers Vs. Jagdish Raj & Ors., 2003 (1) Civil Court 7, has held that once an application is made by the opposite party for referring the matter to arbitration in terms of arbitration agreement, the court thereafter cannot decide the application U/O 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, as nothing further is ne by the court except for referring the matter to reasoned and has been passed in accordance with the statutory provisions as well as the settled law. It does not suffer from In view thereof, the petition accordingly stands dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No Raj & Brothers Vs. Jagdish Raj & Ors., 2003 (1) Civil Court 7, has held that once an application is made by the opposite party for referring the matter to arbitration in terms of arbitration agreement, the court thereafter cannot decide the application U/O 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC, as nothing further is ne by the court except for referring the matter to passed in accordance with the statutory provisions as well as the settled law. It does not suffer from Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) Aman Dua 2025.05.19 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document