903-CRA-73-2023.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 73 OF 2023 M/s. Quality Fabricators And Erectors And Another … Applicants Vs. M/s. Prakash Metal Corporation … Respondent Mr. Rishabh Tiwari a/w Chaitali Bhogle i/b Sagar Kasar for the Applicant. Mr. Sachin Chavan for the Respondent. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 7th NOVEMBER 2025 ORDER: 1. This application is filed by the original defendants invoking Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (‘CPC’) to challenge the order passed by the trial Court rejecting an application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC to reject the plaint. The respondent has filed a suit for recovery of an amount against the present applicant. The applicant prayed for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause and therefore a civil suit is barred. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the plaintiff has Page no. 1 of 6 MJ Jadhav MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV Digitally signed by MANGALTAI JAYWANT JADHAV Date: 2025.11.14 13:41:48 +0530 903-CRA-73-2023.doc referred to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the parties, which contains the arbitration clause. He referred to the relevant pleadings in the plaint regarding the MOU. He submits that the MOU is annexed to the plaint, which contains the arbitration clause. He therefore submits that the civil suit is barred in view of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff supports the impugned order. He submits that Section 8 of the Arbitration Act would not create any bar for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. The trial Court has therefore rightly refused to reject the plaint on the said ground. He further points out that there is already an order of ‘no written statement’ against the applicant. The applicant has also failed to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness, and there is an order of ‘no cross’. He submits that at this stage the applicant is not entitled to invoke Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. He therefore submits that the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold on the ground of the arbitration clause by invoking Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. 4. I have perused the papers of the application. The suit is filed for the recovery of an amount from the present applicant. The plaintiff has relied upon an MOU dated 2nd May 2012 and a Page no. 2 of 6 903-CRA-73-2023.doc registered sale deed dated 4th January 2010. According to the defendants, the MOU dated 2nd May 2012 contains an arbitration clause. The plaintiff has relied upon the copy of the registered sale deed in the name of the defendants, which, according to the plaintiff, was submitted by the plaintiff to the defendants as security for the loan advanced by the plaintiff to the defendants. The trial Court has referred to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act and the clause of arbitration relied upon by the defendants. Considering the prayers in the suit for recovery of the amount, the trial Court held that there is no clarity in clause 17 of the MOU regarding settlement of the dispute by way of arbitration. The trial Court, by referring to the provision of Section 8, therefore refused to allow the application for rejection of the plaint at the threshold on the ground of the arbitration clause in the MOU. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the decision of the Telangana High Court in the case of Naolin Infrastructure Private Limited Versus Kalpana Industries, F-11, Industrial Area, Jhunjhunu1. Learned counsel for the applicant relies upon the said decision to support his submissions that once the requirement in Section 8(1) is satisfied, Order VII Rule 11 can be applied for rejection of the plaint. 1 2024 SCC OnLine TS 1618 Page no. 3 of 6 903-CRA-73-2023.doc 6. I have perused the judgment of the Telangana High Court. The said case was an application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act for the appointment of an arbitrator. The respondent in the said case had filed a suit for recovery of an amount. The applicant before the High Court had filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred in view of Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act. The application for rejection of the plaint was dismissed, and an appeal was pending. Hence, the respondent before the High Court contended that the applicant would not be entitled to seek the appointment of an arbitrator. The Telangana High Court holds that the requirement contained in Section 8(1) of the Arbitration Act was satisfied in the facts of the case by filing an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, by bringing to the notice of the Court that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. However, by filing such an application, the applicant before the High Court had not submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the civil Court. Hence, the respondent’s objection that the applicant before the High Court would not be entitled to invoke Section 11 (6) of the Act was misconceived. The High Court accordingly referred the parties for mediation by appointing an arbitrator. Thus, the proposition laid down in the said decision would not apply in the facts of the present Page no. 4 of 6 903-CRA-73-2023.doc case. 7. Section 8 of the Arbitration Act reads as under: Section 8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement - 2[(1) A judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any Court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists.] (2) The application referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be entertained unless it is accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy thereof: 3[Provided that where the original arbitration agreement or a certified copy thereof is not available with the party applying for reference to arbitration under sub-section (1), and the said agreement or certified copy is retained by the other party to that agreement, then, the party so applying shall file such application along with a copy of the arbitration agreement and a petition praying the Court to call upon the other party to produce the original arbitration agreement or its duly certified copy before that Court.] (3) Notwithstanding that an application has been made 2 Substituted by Act 3 of 2016, S.4, for sub-S. (1) (w.r.e.f. 23-10-2015). 3 Inserted by Act 3 of 2016, S. 4 (w.r.e.f. 23-10-2015). Page no. 5 of 6 903-CRA-73-2023.doc under sub-section (1) and that the issue is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an arbitral award made. 8. There is no bar under Section 8 to file a civil suit. The Court is empowered to refer the parties to arbitration if the original agreement is produced before the Court to bring to the notice of the Court that an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. Section 8 of the Arbitration Act does not take away the civil Court’s jurisdiction. There is neither any express bar nor any implied bar for rejecting the suit in view of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Hence, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold on the ground that there is an arbitration clause between the parties. 9. The impugned order, therefore, rightly rejects the application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC. There is neither any jurisdictional error nor any manifest error in the reasons recorded in the impugned order, warranting interference under Section 115 of the CPC. 10. The Civil Revision Application is therefore dismissed. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 6 of 6