CR No. 200 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No. 200 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 31.08.2010 Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Ser. Ltd. ....Petitioner Versus Harpal Singh and another ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. G.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. APS Bhinder, Advocate for the respondents. ... Alok Singh, J. Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.5.2009 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malout, thereby rejecting the application moved by the defendant - petitioner herein under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiffs - respondents had filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendant -petitioner restraining the defendant - petitioner from allegedly misusing blank signed cheques and further for mandatory junction, seeking direction to the CR No. 200 of 2010 2 defendant to hand over possession of the vehicle in question. In the plaint, reference was made by the plaintiff about the agreement between the parties being Agreement No.450294 dated 29.5.2006. Having received notice of the suit, defendant - petitioner herein moved an application under Section 8 of the Act for reference of the matter to the arbitrator in view of Clause 26 of the agreement dated 29.5.2006. Photocopy of the agreement dated 29.5.2006 executed between the parties and admitted by the plaintiff in the plaint, is also enclosed alongwith the application. The trial Court placing reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the matter of Atul Singh Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh and others, 2008(1) RCR 908, rejected the application saying the application is not accompanied by the original agreement or duly certified copy thereof. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned order dated 18.5.2009, defendant - petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant argued that there is no denial that an agreement was executed between the parties on 29.5.2006 and Clause 26 thereof contains the arbitration agreement. It is further stated by learned counsel for the petitioner - defendant that plaintiff himself has admitted Agreement No.450294 dated 29.5.2006 in his plaint and photocopy of the agreement is placed on the record, which is not denied, hence, merely because original is not filed, application ought not to have been rejected. Learned counsel for the respondents stated that although, there is an agreement between the parties containing the arbitration clause, however, in view of the fact that original agreement or certified copy thereof has not been filed alongwith the application, hence, CR No. 200 of 2010 3 mere filing of photocopy of the agreement is not sufficient to invoke jurisdiction under section 8(1) of the Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Undisputedly, plaintiff is also admitting execution and existence of the arbitration agreement dated 29.5.2006 in the plaint. Undisputedly, defendant is also alleging arbitration agreement in the application under Section 8 of the Act and photocopy of the agreement dated 29.5.2006 is enclosed with the application under Section 8 of the Act. In the opinion of this Court, in view of the above undisputed facts, compliance of Section 8(2) of the Act should be deemed having been complied with. Moreover, filing of photocopy of agreement containing the arbitration clause therein, alongwith the application under Section 8 of the Act and admission of both the parties about the existence of the arbitration agreement would amount to compliance of Section 8(2) of the Act. No formal certificate certifying the copy of the agreement as true and correct is required. Original or certified copy of the arbitration agreement is required to be filed alongwith application under Section 8 of the Act when arbitration agreement is disputed by the other side. Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.5.2009 is quashed. Application filed by the defendant - petitioner under Section 8 of the Act is allowed and the matter is directed to be referred for the arbitration in accordance with Clause 26 of the agreement dated 29.5.2006. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 31.08.2010 sk.