AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Indian Arbitration Act, 1940
  • Companies Act
  • Section 8, Sub-section (1) of the Arbitration Act
  • Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition
Advocates
Judges
Acts
  • Indian Arbitration Act, 1940
  • Companies Act
  • Section 8, Sub-section (1) of the Arbitration Act
  • Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent filed a winding-up petition before the High Court. Invoking an arbitration clause between the parties, the petitioner applied under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking a reference of the dispute to arbitration. A Single Judge dismissed the application, and a Division Bench affirmed that order. The petitioner approached the present court challenging those concurrent orders.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether a winding-up petition under the Companies Act can be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 when an arbitration agreement exists between the parties.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Section 8(1) uses mandatory language (“shall”) and obliges a judicial authority to refer the parties to arbitration whenever an arbitration agreement exists and an application is made before filing the first statement on the substance of the dispute.
  • The wording of Section 8 of the 1996 Act is materially different from the provisions of the erstwhile Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 that were relied upon by High Courts in earlier cases refusing references in winding-up matters.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court accepted that Section 8(1) creates a statutory mandate, but held that the mandate is confined to disputes that are arbitrable. Referring a matter to arbitration presupposes that the arbitrator is legally competent to grant the relief sought. A winding-up petition is not a claim for money or contractual performance; it is a statutory remedy asserting that the company is commercially insolvent and should be dissolved. The power to order winding-up is vested exclusively in the court under the Companies Act. An arbitrator, regardless of any agreement, lacks jurisdiction to make such an order. Because the subject-matter of the petition is inherently non-arbitrable, Section 8 does not require a reference. Consequently, the High Court was correct in refusing the application.

Holding and Implications

The petition is dismissed in limine.

Immediate Effect: The winding-up proceedings will continue before the High Court; no reference to arbitration will be made. Broader Implication: The decision reaffirms that statutory winding-up proceedings are non-arbitrable, clarifying the limits of the mandatory reference mechanism under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. No new precedent was set beyond this clarification.

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Haryana Telecom Ltd. v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. .

    1. On a winding-up petition having been filed by the respondent before the High Court, the petitioner herein moved an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, inter alia, contending that the High Court should refer the matter to arbitration.

    2. The Single Judge dismissed the application and the same was upheld by the Division Bench. While dismissing the appeal the High Court referred to similar cases relating to applications which have been filed under the provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 where the consistent view of the High Courts was that the question regarding the winding up of a company could not be referred to an arbitrator.

    3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the language of Section 8 of the 1996 Act is different. Mr Jaitley submits that according to Section 8(1) the judicial authority is bound to refer that matter to arbitration when an arbitration agreement exists between the parties. Section 8 of the 1996 Act reads as under:

    “8. Power to refer parties to arbitration where there is an arbitration agreement.—(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 so applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, refer the parties to arbitration.

    (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) Notwithstanding that an application has been made 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.”

    4. Sub-section (1) of Section 8 provides that the judicial authority before whom an action is brought in a matter, will refer the parties to arbitration the said matter in accordance with the arbitration agreement. This, however, postulates, in our opinion, that what can be referred to the arbitrator is only that dispute or matter which the arbitrator is competent or empowered to decide.

    5. The claim in a petition for winding up is not for money. The petition filed under the Companies Act would be to the effect, in a matter like this, that the company has become commercially insolvent and, therefore, should be wound up. The power to order winding up of a company is contained under the Companies Act and is conferred on the court. An arbitrator, notwithstanding any agreement between the parties, would have no jurisdiction to order winding up of a company. The matter which is pending before the High Court in which the application was filed by the petitioner herein was relating to winding up of the Company. That could obviously not be referred to arbitration and, therefore, the High Court, in our opinion was right in rejecting the application.

    6. For the aforesaid reasons this petition is dismissed in limine.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Haryana Telecom Ltd. v. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. .
    (Jul 13, 1999)