IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.214 of 2007 Date of decision: 26.02.2008 M/s.Tata Motors Ltd. ….Petitioner Versus Bachittar Singh ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioner: Ms.Shilpa Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent: None. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner who is the defendant in the learned Court below. A suit was instituted against the petitioner by the respondent. The petitioner preferred an application under Section 8 read with Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’) stating therein that clause No.23 in the agreement on which the respondent- plaintiff relied, was an arbitration agreement between the parties and as such under the jurisdiction of this Court. The application was taken up by the learned trial Court which passed a very perfunctory order dismissing the petition as not maintainable. A terse 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 order has been passed by the Court holding that invoking the provisions of Section 11(5) of the Act to say that the application is not maintainable. There is no reasoning or any precedent which has been relied upon to substantiate the conclusions reached by the learned court below. Section 8 of the Act, provides:- “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.” The Court below has simply dismissed the application without any reasoning or reference to case law as to why the application filed by the petitioner 3 is not maintainable. It need hardly be emphasized that judicial orders should be reasoned and supported by principles of law after a judicial determination of facts. It should not be of a bureaucratic and pre- judgmental in nature. The detailed averments made in the application requiring consideration about the existence of an arbitration clause, its application etc. were the subject matter for decision. These vital facts have been ignored. Judgment cannot be sustained from whatever angle it is considered. The Court below has exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner. This petition is accordingly allowed. The order of the learned trial Court dated 26.6.2007 is quashed and set aside. The matter is directed to be taken up by the learned trial Court for decision afresh on the application under Section 8 of the Act moved by the petitioner-defendant. Actual date notices for appearance shall be sent to both the parties. Registry is directed to send the record to the trial Court immediately. These petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. All the miscellaneous applications are disposed of. February 26, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.