Rainbow Aviation Private Limited & Ors & ... vs Nachiappan Kannan
- CitationComp. App. (AT) No. 07 of 2026
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an application is captioned under the wrong provision but its substance is a request under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Tribunal must treat it according to its substance and decide it on merits, whether the parties should be referred to arbitration, rather than dismiss it because the respondent has not filed a reply to the principal petition. An application seeking reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 cannot properly be dismissed merely because the opposing party has not filed a reply to the main company petition; such a ground does not dispose of the statutory question whether the parties are bound by an arbitration agreement and should be referred to arbitration.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE MATTER OF: Rainbow Aviation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Appellant
Versus
Nachiappan Kannan ...Respondents
Present: For Appellant : Appearance not marked. For Respondents : Adv. Vivek Raja, Mr. Akash Dalal, Advocates.
ORDER
(Hybrid Mode)
16.01.2026 None for the Appellant. A perusal of the impugned order
would reveal that simply on the ground the Appellants have not filed Reply to
the main C.P. No. 200/MB/2025, their application viz C.A. No. 341/2025 was
dismissed with cost of Rs. 20,000/-.
2. The perusal of the record would show the appellant had filed a Petition
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was
pending and thus the present application viz CA 341/2025 was moved under
Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, though in title of the
application, it was inadvertently typed as the one under Section 11 of the NCLT
Rules, 2016. However, the perusal of paragraphs No. 13 and 14 of such
application would show such application was essentially under Section 8 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, hence it was incumbent upon the Ld.
NCLT to deal with such application on merits and to decide it as to if it was
necessary or not, to refer the parties to arbitration and if any arbitration
agreement(s) existed between the parties.
3. Thus, the dismissal of CA No.341/2025 merely on the ground the Reply
to the Company Petition No. 200/2025 was not filed, to our mind was wholly
unjustified, hence we set aside the impugned order and request the Learned
NCLT to take up C.A. (No.) 341/2025 by treating it as filed under Section 8 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and decide it on merits. The appeal stands
disposed of in terms of the above. Pending Applications viz I.A. No. 215/2026
and 216/2026 are also disposed of.
[Justice Yogesh Khanna] Member (Judicial)
[Ajai Das Mehrotra] Member (Technical)
MT/RR
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free