3006wp833.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR W.P.NO.833 of 2011 Union of India ..vs.. Bindeswari Prasad Gupta ............................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ............................................................................................................................................................... Mr. P.S.Lambat, Adv. for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 30th June, 2011. This petition takes exception to the order dated 11/10/2010, by which order the application filed by the petitioner i.e. the Union of India for referring its dispute with the respondent herein to Arbitration came to be rejected. The petitioner herein is the original defendant in the suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.12,55,664/- along with interest of Rs.2,07,184.55 and an amount of Rs.64000/- towards security deposit, total amounting to Rs.15,26,848/-. In the said suit, the petitioner herein has filed its written statement. Thereafter, the issues were framed. Thereafter, the respondent herein who is the plaintiff has filed the affidavit of evidence and matter was kept for cross-examination of the plaintiff when the application, in which the impugnped order came to be passed, was filed by the petitioner herein. The Trial court rejected the 3006wp833.11.odt 2 said application on the ground that the suit has progressed, in as much as, the issues were framed as well as the suit was kept for the cross-examination of the plaintiff. One of the requisites for invoking Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is that the objection regarding the matter to be referred to Arbitration should be taken before filing of the first statement. In the instant case, as can be seen, the suit has progressed substantially, in as much as plaintiff was to be cross-examined by the defendant i.e. the petitioner herein. The Trial Court, therefore, considering the said fact was pleased to reject the said application. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Lambat relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1886 in the matter of P.Anand Gajapathi Raju and ors. ..vs.. P.V.G.Raju (died) and ors. The fact situation in the said case was that a reference was made to Arbitration, mid-way but the same was by agreement of the parties. Hence, the said judgment would have no application in the facts of the present case. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE chute