Referring parties to arbitration under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

Referring parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is mandatory, not discretionary: once a party applies before submitting its first statement on the substance of the dispute, the judicial authority must refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists. The Supreme Court has described the language of Section 8 as peremptory, and has held that the court’s task is not to ask whether it has jurisdiction but whether its jurisdiction has been ousted. Since 2023, two rulings have narrowed the referral court’s inquiry further, pushing questions of stamping and arbitrability to the arbitral tribunal. This article explains the conditions, the prima facie standard, the disputes that still cannot be referred, and how Section 8 differs from Section 11.

This article sets out the conditions, judicial standard, case law and practical limits involved in referring parties to arbitration under Section 8.

SPONSORED

Section 8 is the provision a defendant reaches for when it has been sued in court despite an arbitration agreement. It does not create an arbitration or appoint anyone. It does one thing: it takes the dispute away from the civil court and sends the parties where they agreed to go. For a broader treatment of the provision and its ingredients, see our explainer on Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

The provision was substituted in its current form by Act 3 of 2016 with effect from 31 December 2015. The substitution did two things that matter. It inserted a non obstante clause overriding contrary judicial precedent, and it narrowed the court’s escape route to a single prima facie finding.

What has changed since is less about the text and more about how far a court may look before referring. Three benches of the Supreme Court between 2020 and 2024 have moved that line, and they have moved it in one direction.

Conditions that trigger a reference under Section 8

A reference under Section 8 is triggered when four conditions are met. The Supreme Court set them out in P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju, (2000) 4 SCC 539, and they have survived the 2015 substitution intact:

1. there is an arbitration agreement;
2. a party to the agreement brings an action in the court against the other party;
3. the subject matter of the action is the same as the subject matter of the arbitration agreement;
4. the other party moves the court for referring the parties to arbitration before it submits his first statement on the substance of the dispute.

The fourth condition carries most of the litigation. The cut-off is not a date on a calendar but a description of conduct: the applicant must not have engaged with the merits. File a written statement that answers the plaint paragraph by paragraph, and the right is gone. Seek an adjournment, and it usually is not.

The agreement itself must satisfy Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, which requires it to be in writing. A clause that is vague about whether arbitration is compulsory, or that leaves the seat and the appointing authority unstated, invites the argument that no valid agreement exists at all. This is where drafting quality decides the outcome long before the dispute arises, a point that applies equally to commercial contracts drafted for clients abroad, as this guide to contract drafting for foreign clients sets out.

Section 8(2) adds a documentary condition: the application is not entertained unless accompanied by the original arbitration agreement or a duly certified copy. A proviso added in 2016 softens this. Where the original is with the opposite party and the applicant does not have access to it, the applicant may file a copy along with a petition asking the court to call for the original.

Section 8(3) closes off a delaying tactic. Even while the Section 8 application is pending before the judicial authority, an arbitration may be commenced or continued and an award made. The court’s slowness does not stall the tribunal.

The court’s obligation to refer parties to arbitration

The court’s obligation to refer parties to arbitration is mandatory once the conditions are satisfied. The Supreme Court in P. Anand Gajapathi Raju settled this with one word that has been quoted ever since:

“The language of Section 8(1) is peremptory. It is, therefore, obligatory for the Court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of their arbitration agreement.”

The more useful judicial observation for a practitioner came fifteen years later. In Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. T. Thankam, (2015) 14 SCC 444, the Supreme Court reframed what the civil court is actually deciding:

“Once an application in due compliance of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act is filed, the approach of the civil court should be not to see whether the court has jurisdiction. It should be to see whether its jurisdiction has been ousted.”

That inversion matters in practice. A court asking whether it has jurisdiction will start from its own general competence and look for reasons to keep the suit. A court asking whether its jurisdiction has been ousted starts from the arbitration agreement and looks for reasons to let the suit go. The same facts produce different outcomes depending on which question the judge asks first.

The 2015 substitution reinforced this by adding the words “notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any Court” to Section 8(1). Parliament was displacing accumulated precedent that had given courts room to refuse referral on grounds nowhere in the section.

The prima facie standard after the 2015 amendment

The prima facie standard is the only escape route the text leaves open. Section 8(1) requires referral “unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists”. The Law Commission of India recommended this wording in its 246th Report to confine pre-arbitral scrutiny and leave the final determination of the agreement’s existence and validity to the tribunal.

In Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1, a three-judge bench held that the scope of review under Section 8 and under Section 11 is the same, rejecting the older view that Section 11 involved a narrower look. The court also warned against the referral court conducting a mini trial and usurping the tribunal’s jurisdiction. Where the validity of the agreement cannot be determined on a prima facie basis, the concurring opinion put the rule plainly:

“The Court should refer a matter if the validity of the arbitration agreement cannot be determined on a prima facie basis, as laid down above, i.e., ‘when in doubt, do refer’.”

A caution on a phrase that circulates widely. The “eye of the needle” test is routinely attributed to Vidya Drolia in commentary, but it does not come from that judgment. It comes from NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd., (2023) SCC OnLine SC 389, where the Supreme Court described the referral court’s limited scrutiny as passing through the eye of the needle, and said that even the slightest doubt should lead to a reference.

The line has since moved again. In SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1754, a three-judge bench held that tests such as the eye of the needle and ex-facie meritless require the referral court to examine contested facts and appreciate prima facie evidence, and are therefore no longer in conformity with the principles of modern arbitration. The direction of travel across Vidya Drolia, NTPC and Krish Spinning is consistent: each ruling leaves the referral court less to do.

That trajectory connects to the tribunal’s own authority to rule on its jurisdiction, which we cover in our piece on kompetenz-kompetenz and separability of the arbitration clause.

Disputes a court will refuse to refer

A court will refuse to refer a dispute that is not capable of settlement by arbitration at all. This is the real limit on Section 8, and it sits mostly outside the section’s text, which speaks only of a valid arbitration agreement.

The foundation is Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 532, where the Supreme Court held that a suit for enforcement of a mortgage by sale was non-arbitrable and drew the governing distinction:

“Generally and traditionally all disputes relating to rights in personam are considered to be amenable to arbitration; and all disputes relating to rights in rem are required to be adjudicated by courts and public tribunals, being unsuited for private arbitration.”

Booz Allen listed six well-recognised categories of non-arbitrable disputes: criminal offences, matrimonial disputes, guardianship matters, insolvency and winding up, testamentary matters, and eviction or tenancy matters governed by special statutes conferring jurisdiction on specified courts. Subordinate rights in personam arising from rights in rem remain arbitrable.

Vidya Drolia later supplied a fourfold test for non-arbitrability, which we treat at length in our explainer on arbitrability of disputes in India. In short, a subject matter is non-arbitrable when the cause of action relates to actions in rem, when it affects third party rights and has erga omnes effect, when it relates to inalienable sovereign and public interest functions of the State, or when a mandatory statute makes it non-arbitrable expressly or by necessary implication.

Consumer disputes are the clearest statutory example. In Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh, (2019) 12 SCC 751, the Supreme Court refused to let an arbitration clause displace a consumer forum:

“The amendment in Section 8 cannot be given such expansive meaning and intent so as to inundate entire regime of special legislations (like Consumer Protection Act) where such disputes were held to be non-arbitrable.”

The nuance is worth holding on to. Emaar MGF does not say a consumer can never arbitrate. Where a person holds an additional special remedy but does not opt for it, arbitration is not barred. It is only where the special remedy is actually invoked that the judicial authority can refuse to relegate the parties to arbitration.

Fraud has a more tangled history. In A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386, decided on a Section 8 application, the Supreme Court held that allegations of fraud simpliciter are arbitrable while serious allegations of fraud are not, and placed a heavy burden on the party resisting arbitration. Vidya Drolia subsequently narrowed that position considerably, so Ayyasamy should be read as a step in a sequence rather than as the current test standing alone.

Non-signatories and claiming through or under

A non-signatory can be referred to arbitration under Section 8, and the hook is in the section’s own text. Section 8(1) permits an application by “a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him”. Those last words are what allow the section to reach beyond the parties who signed.

In Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., (2024) 4 SCC 1, a five-judge Constitution Bench held that the group of companies doctrine has an independent existence in Indian law, derived from a harmonious reading of Section 2(1)(h) with Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. A non-signatory that is genuinely part of a transaction can be bound by the arbitration agreement in it.

The test is demanding rather than automatic. The court looks for positive, direct and substantial involvement in the negotiation, performance or termination of the contract. Mere incidental involvement is not enough to infer consent, and the burden lies on the party seeking to join the non-signatory to establish that involvement on objective evidence.

Composite transactions were addressed earlier in Ameet Lalchand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprises, (2018) 15 SCC 678. Four interconnected agreements executed for a single solar power project were treated as one commercial transaction, and all parties were referred to arbitration under the clause in the principal agreement. The court said commercial arrangements should be examined with a sense of business efficacy.

Stamping objections after the 2023 seven-judge ruling

A stamping objection is no longer a route to defeat a reference. This is the single largest change to the referral landscape since the 2015 amendment, and it arrived through In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (2024) 6 SCC 1, decided by a seven-judge bench on 13 December 2023.

The bench held that an unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument is inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, but that this is a curable defect. On the consequence for validity, the court was direct:

“Non-stamping or improper stamping does not result in the instrument becoming invalid. The Stamp Act does not render such an instrument void.”

This overruled the five-judge decision in N.N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. v. Indo Unique Flame Ltd., which had held by a 3:2 majority that an unstamped agreement was unenforceable. Under the earlier view, a party resisting arbitration could stall a reference by pointing at a deficiency in stamp duty. That argument no longer works.

One point of precision. The seven-judge bench framed its analysis around Section 11(6A) and the competence-competence principle, holding that a referral court should examine only whether an arbitration agreement exists and leave stamping to the tribunal. Its application to Section 8 follows from Vidya Drolia’s holding that the scope of examination under Sections 8 and 11 is the same, rather than from an express direction in the judgment itself.

The practical consequence is the same either way. A judicial authority hearing a Section 8 application should not be impounding instruments and computing duty. Those are matters for the arbitrator.

Section 8 and Section 11 compared

Section 8 and Section 11 do different jobs at different moments. Section 8 is defensive and is invoked before a judicial authority already seised of a suit, asking it to step back. Section 11 is affirmative and is invoked before the High Court or the Supreme Court to constitute a tribunal when the agreed appointment mechanism has failed. Our explainer on Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 covers the appointment process, and LawSikho’s guide to Section 11 and the appointment of an arbitrator works through the petition in practice.

After Vidya Drolia, the standard of scrutiny is common to both. Both courts look only at whether a valid arbitration agreement prima facie exists, and both leave the rest to the tribunal.

Where a Section 8 application is refused, an appeal lies. Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides an appeal from an order “refusing to refer the parties to arbitration under section 8”, and Section 37(1) states that an appeal shall lie from the listed orders “and from no others”. An order allowing a Section 8 application is not on that list, so the party kept out of court has no statutory appeal and is left to the High Court’s supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, which is exercised sparingly.

One older authority needs care. Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya, (2003) 5 SCC 531 held that Section 8 does not permit bifurcation of the cause of action or of the parties, so a suit involving some parties outside the arbitration agreement could not be split. That decision has not been overruled. Its practical reach, however, has been substantially reduced by the 2015 substitution and by the composite transaction reasoning in Ameet Lalchand Shah, and it should not be cited today as though the position were unchanged.

Frequently asked questions

Is a judicial authority bound to refer parties to arbitration under Section 8?

Yes. The Supreme Court held in P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju that the language of Section 8(1) is peremptory and that referral is obligatory once the conditions are met. The only escape is a finding that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists, or that the dispute is not arbitrable at all.

What is the deadline for filing a Section 8 application?

The application must be made not later than the date of submitting the first statement on the substance of the dispute. This is a conduct-based cut-off rather than a fixed number of days. A party that has already answered the merits of the plaint has lost the right to apply.

Can a court refuse to refer parties to arbitration if the agreement is unstamped?

No. A seven-judge bench held in In Re: Interplay that an unstamped or insufficiently stamped instrument is inadmissible in evidence but that the defect is curable and does not render the agreement void. Stamping is for the arbitral tribunal to deal with, not the referral court.

Can a non-signatory be referred to arbitration under Section 8?

Yes, in defined circumstances. Section 8(1) covers a person claiming through or under a party, and the Constitution Bench in Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. confirmed that the group of companies doctrine can bind a non-signatory. The party seeking joinder must show positive, direct and substantial involvement in the contract.

What is the difference between Section 8 and Section 11?

Section 8 asks a court already hearing a suit to refer the parties to arbitration. Section 11 asks the High Court or Supreme Court to appoint an arbitrator when the agreed mechanism has failed. Since Vidya Drolia, the scope of judicial examination under both provisions is the same.

References

Case law

1. A. Ayyasamy v. A. Paramasivam, (2016) 10 SCC 386
2. Ameet Lalchand Shah v. Rishabh Enterprises, (2018) 15 SCC 678
3. Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Ltd., (2011) 5 SCC 532
4. Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India Pvt. Ltd., (2024) 4 SCC 1 (five-judge Constitution Bench, 6 December 2023)
5. Emaar MGF Land Ltd. v. Aftab Singh, (2019) 12 SCC 751
6. In Re: Interplay Between Arbitration Agreements under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, (2024) 6 SCC 1 (seven-judge bench, 13 December 2023)
7. NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd., (2023) SCC OnLine SC 389
8. P. Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju, (2000) 4 SCC 539
9. SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1754
10. Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya, (2003) 5 SCC 531
11. Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. T. Thankam, (2015) 14 SCC 444
12. Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation, (2021) 2 SCC 1

Statutes

1. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (sections cited: 2(1)(h), 7, 8, 11, 37)
2. Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (section cited: 35)

Reports

1. Law Commission of India, 246th Report on Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (August 2014)

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified advocate for advice on their specific circumstances.