2026 Page 1 of 3 29th January v. VARALAKSHMI STARCH INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED AND 3 ORS
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Consequently, this petition is dismissed as having no substance
Provisions considered
- Arbitration Act ss. 8, 11
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The Petitioners impugns order dated 29.05.2023 passed on Exhibit 37 (an application filed by the Plaintiffs to close the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act); the impugned order has been passed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Mapusa in…
Judgment
Cause title
WP 47.2026 Page 1 of 3 29th January, 2026 Sonam IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 47 OF 2026
POWER ENGINEERING (INDIA) PVT. LTD., ALL REP. BY AND THR. MANGESH DALVI AND 3 ORS … Petitioners
Versus
VARALAKSHMI STARCH INDUSTRIES (P) LIMITED AND 3 ORS ... Respondents
Mr. Venkatesh Ameya Nayak Salatry, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Yogesh Nadkarni with
Mr. Nilay Naik, Advocates for the Respondents.
CORAM:- VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED:- 29th JANUARY, 2026.
ORAL ORDER:
Registry to waive office objections and register the matter.
The Petitioners impugns order dated 29.05.2023 passed on Exhibit 37 (an application filed by the Plaintiffs to close the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act); the impugned order has been passed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division at Mapusa in Commercial Suit No. 4/2020. (13) WP 47.2026 Page 2 of 3 29th January, 2026 3. From the record, it appears that the Defendants had invoked Clause (14) of the Agreements dated 19.08.2019, between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants and filed a proceeding under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, before the Madras High Court. That application came to be dismissed by the Madras High Court on two grounds, first being a ground of limitation and the second being that the application was not maintainable for want of invocation of the Arbitral Clause, since no notice had been issued under Section 21 of the Arbitration Act. In the meantime, the Plaintiffs filed the aforementioned suit, in which the Defendants filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, claiming that the Court had to refer the parties to Arbitration, since the claim in the suit was founded upon a contract which includes the Arbitral Clause (14) therein.
This application is pending since December, 2014. 4. The Plaintiffs then filed an application at Exhibit 37, requesting the Court to close the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act filed by the Defendants and to proceed with the trial in the suit. It is this application that is dismissed by the impugned order. 5. On perusal of the impugned order, I can find no infirmity therein, either legal or otherwise. The application was obviously not maintainable, as the Court was required to hear (13) WP 47.2026 Page 3 of 3 29th January, 2026 and pass an order on the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act. Such an application filed at Exhibit 37 ought not have been entertained in the first place and would be rendered infructuous, if the Trial Court has decided the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, which is pending since December, 2014. The decision on the application under Section 8 decides, whether the suit remains with the Civil Court, or the disputes raised therein would be decided by the Arbitrator.
Operative part
Consequently, this petition is dismissed as having no substance. 6. Considering that the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, is pending since 2014, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division at Mapusa is directed to dispose of this application preferably by 31.03.2026. Since the next date of the suit is now on 11.02.2026, the parties shall cooperate with the Civil Court in having a speedy disposal of the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act by 31.03.2026. 7. The petition is dismissed with the above directions. No costs. VALMIKI MENEZES, J.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.