Must a party use Section 8 of the Arbitration Act because a suit was filed?

No. There is no merit in the submission that the petitioner should be relegated to pursuing the remedy under Section 8. In view of the clear terms of the contract between the parties, a reference to arbitration would be necessitated notwithstanding the suit instituted by the respondent.

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 — s.7(5) — s.11 — Incorporation by reference — Arbitration agreement — International commercial arbitration — Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 — s.7(5) — Incorporation, not mere reference — Held: Where one agreement provides that its terms shall constitute an integral part of another and shall apply mutatis mutandis, it does not merely refer to that other agreement but incorporates its terms, carrying the arbitration clause with them. (¶15, 16) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 — s.7(5) — Reference short of incorporation — Held further: Where the reference shows that the document was not intended to be incorporated in entirety, the reference will not make the arbitration clause part of the contract unless there is a special reference to that clause. (¶18) Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 — s.11 — Pendency of a suit and Section 8 — Held further: A party is not to be relegated to a Section 8 application merely because the opposite party has instituted a suit; on clear contractual terms a reference to arbitration is necessitated. Arbitrator appointed. (¶20, 21)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Shinhan Bank v. Carol Info Services Limited — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India