Rakesh Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the revisionist/applicant and Sri Naveen Sinha, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Yashwant Verma, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 as well as Sri Yatindra Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
(2.) THIS revision has not been admitted so far and the case has come up for admission before this court. Through this revision, the revisionist, Starlinger and Company, having its registered office at Sonnenuhgassee 4, A -1060, Vienna, Austria, has assailed an order dated 26.2.2010, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kanpur Nagar, in OS No. 788 of 2006, by which an application, that is, 31 -GA, submitted by the revisionist was dealt with. The revisionist has also sought for stay of the further proceedings in OS No. 788 of 2006 being contested by the parties in this revision. The trial court had declined to refer the matter to arbitrator as, according to the trial court, the declaratory suit, seeking injunction also, was maintainable before it.
(3.) IT emerges from the record that an agreement was executed between the revisionist -company and respondent No. 1, Raj Kumar Lohia, representing the Lohia family of Kanpur, on 10.11.1992. A copy of the agreement has been placed as annexure 3 to the affidavit submitted in this case. This agreement contains 18 terms and conditions, which were binding on the contracting parties.;