Mita INDIA Private Limited vs. M/S Yaskawa INDIA PVT. LTD.

Facts

Mita India Private Limited (petitioner) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,28,11,298/- against M/s Yaskawa India Private Limited (respondent). The defendant was served on 26.11.2022. As per the Commercial Courts Act, the defendant had 120 days to file a written statement, making the deadline 26.03.2023. The defendant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on 09.01.2023, during which the period for filing the written statement expired. On 24.08.2023, the Commercial Court allowed the Section 8 application, referring the parties to arbitration and rejecting the plaint. The plaintiff challenged this order. Separately, the defendant challenged an order dated 18.08.2025 by which their application to place the written statement on record was dismissed as filed beyond the 120-day limit.

Held

The Court held that the Purchase Order dated 15.10.2018, issued by Mita India Private Limited, expressly stated that it was limited to its terms and conditions and objected to any additional or different terms proposed by the supplier. It further stipulated that any such proposed terms would be void and that the terms in the Purchase Order would constitute the complete and exclusive statement of the contract. Therefore, the arbitration clause in the supplier's proposal was not incorporated into the contract. Consequently, the Commercial Court erred in allowing the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and rejecting the plaint. Regarding the second issue, the Court held that the defendant was served on 26.11.2022 and had a maximum of 120 days to file the written statement, which expired on 26.03.2023. As per settled law, there is no discretion for the trial court to extend this period further. The pendency of the Section 8 application did not stay the period for filing the written statement, nor was there any legal bar to filing it. The Court upheld the trial court's order dismissing the defendant's application to file the written statement beyond the prescribed period, citing the Supreme Court's decision in M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

Key Issues

1. Whether the Commercial Court erred in allowing the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and rejecting the plaint, thereby referring the parties to arbitration? (Question of law) 2. Whether the Commercial Court erred in dismissing the defendant's application to file the written statement beyond the prescribed 120-day period from the date of service? (Question of law) Petitioner (Mita India Private Limited) argued that the Purchase Order dated 15.10.2018, issued by the plaintiff, contained specific terms and conditions that superseded any prior proposal, including the arbitration clause. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's acceptance was limited to the terms of the Purchase Order, which did not include arbitration. The plaintiff relied on the judgment in "M/s SCG Contracts India Pvt. Ltd. (supra)" to argue that the strict timeline for filing written statements in commercial suits must be adhered to. Respondent (M/s Yaskawa India Private Limited) argued that the initial quotation contained an arbitration clause, and the Purchase Order did not expressly exclude it. The respondent also relied on judgments like "Bhanu Kumar Jain (supra)" and "Shaikh Salim Haji Abdul Khayumsab (supra)" regarding arbitration agreements. For the second issue, the respondent argued for the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC before filing the written statement, citing "R.K. Roja Vs. U.S. Rayudu and another (supra)".