On 12 June 2025, the Delhi High Court, before Hon’ble Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur, gave a landmark order in R. Santosh vs One97 Communications Ltd, upholding the rejection of Mr. R. Santosh’s appeal. The case centred around whether a party could approach arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act when the time to file a written statement had expired. Mr Santosh had entered into a ticketing agreement in 2016 and, by an addendum in January 2017, agreed to an interest-free, refundable security deposit of ₹5 lakhs to be paid by One97.When the theatre closed in April 2022, One97 terminated the agreement and sued for refund. Although summons were served, Mr Santosh failed to file his written statement by 13 October, 2023 deadline and also did not cross‐examine the plaintiff’s witness. On 29 February, 2024 the Appellant filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of non joinder of necessary parties, absence of cause of action, and the existence of an arbitration clause in the agreement. However, the learned District Judge dismissed the said application on 8 October 2024.
In his appeal, Mr Santosh claimed that the presence of an arbitration clause in the contract required the matter to be referred to arbitration. However, the High Court observed that because he neglected to file a written statement and did not challenge the uncontroverted evidence—namely the affidavits, agreements, bank statements, and termination notice—he effectively forfeited his defence. His contention that ₹5 lakh deposit was paid to a third party, Mysore Talkies, was not supported and was contrary to what he himself had signed in the agreements.
The Court explicitly made it very clear that after the time for filing a written statement has passed, such a request for arbitration under Section 8 cannot be entertained. The bench relied on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Hitachi Payments Services v Shreyans Jain (2025) to make it abundantly clear that arbitration must be sought together with or prior to the first statement on the principal issue, and not subsequently. It distinguished this judgment from cases like Madhu Sudan Sharma v Omaxe Ltd., where the plea for arbitration was timely, and R.K. Roja v U.S. Rayudu, which warns against using procedural safeguards to reverse procedural lapses. The delay in Mr. Santosh’s arbitration plea was not accepted.
This judgment upholds ₹5 lakhs decree with interest and costs, in favour of One97. It lays down a very important principle: timelines in judicial proceedings are not mere formalities, but necessities to promote fairness. Arbitration clauses cannot be invoked as a fall-back, when crucial timelines are irretrievably lost. The judgment firmly sends a message to litigants, that arbitration should be invoked at the right time, or the opportunity will be lost forever.
https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/62812062025RFAC1302025_151353.pdf