:1: :1: :1: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 327 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s Orders Orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mrs.Neeta V. Masurkar for the petitioners. Mr.V.G.Mujumdar for Respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 16TH FEBRUARY,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The reasoning of the Trial Court and more particularly the factual aspect noted in para-12 makes it abundantly clear that the petitioner has not complied with the requirements stipulated by Section 8(1)(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Act does not envisage any oral Application as contended, by Mrs.Masurkar. The word ‘Application’ as stipulated in sub-section 2 :2: :2: :2: clarifies more than what the legislature intended. In the instant case, the Written Statement is filed on 10.9.2005. Issues have been framed on 14.11.2006. Plaintiff No.1 has adduced oral evidence on 16.2.2007 and the matter is at the stage of cross-examination by the present defendant-petitioner before me. 2. It is at that stage, that a request was made, that the matter is covered by the Arbitration Agreement and therefore the suit cannot proceed. Considering the wording of Section 8, the learned judge was right in rejecting that request and refusing to take cognisance thereof. The Application could not have been entertained at the stage at which the matter was, and more so, when there was nothing in writing as contemplated by Section 8, subsection 2. Petition is therefore summarily dismissed. No costs. sd/- *******