A.K.Banerji - (1.) THIS revision by the defendants is directed against the order dated 16-8-1991, passed by the V Additional Civil Judge, Meerut holding that Clause 25 of the Agreement between the parties amounts to arbitration clause in proceedings under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act in Suit No. 989 of 1989.
(2.) BRIEF facts are that the plaintiff-opposite party M/s. Coronation Construction Company, filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act before the court below which was registered as Suit No. 989 of 1989. The case of the plaintiff was that a contract was given to the said plaintiff by the defendants for construction of R.C.C. over head tank for which an agreement was entered on 16-7-1986 between the parties. It will be relevant to reproduce paragraph No. 5 of the plaint which runs as follows : "5. There is an Arbitration clause being condition 25 of the condition of the contract in the aforesaid agreement and that according to this clause dispute of the parties were to adjudicated or decided by the Zonal Chief Engineer (West Zone), Agra in the capacity of an Arbitrator." According to the plaintiff some dispute arose regarding bills and the claim of the plaintiff hence invoking the arbitration clause No. 25 of the Agreement, the present proceedings were initiated under section 20 of the Arbitration, Act. The defendants have , filed a written statement contesting the said proceedings. It appears that in paragraph No, 5 of the written statement the defendants had stated "that paragraph No. 5 of the plaint is admitted". However, in the additional pleas, paragraph No. 33 of the written statement, it was stated that "there was no clause of Arbitration in the said contract agreement and as such no reference for Arbitration can be made, had there been any clause of Arbitration, then the applicant contractor should have informed the O.Ps. by making out the dispute and should have requested/asked for the O.Ps. for referring the matter, for adjudication to the arbitrator so nominated/mentioned in the contract agreement." The court below framed issue No. 2 to the effect" whether the disputed agreement No. 1/SI/86-87 dated 16-7-1986 an arbitration clause."' After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parities, the court below has held that Clause 25 of the Agreement dated 16-7-1986 does contain an Arbitration Clause and, therefore, decided the said issue in, favour of the plaintiff-opposite party. Aggrieved, the defendant-applicants have preferred this revision before this Court. The learned counsel for the parties were heard at the admission stage and the revision is being finally decided with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) SHRI B. Mathur, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of, the defendant-applicants has referred to Clause 25 of the Contract Agreement dated 16 -7-1986 and has submitted that the said clause does, not contain any arbitration agreement and the view taken to the contrary is manifestly incorrect and illegal. On the other hand, SHRI R. C. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff- opposite party has supported the reasonings given by the court below and has contended that the clause in question amounts to an Arbitration Clause. He has submitted that merely because the word Arbitration, has not been mentioned in the clause. it does not mean that the parties did not intend to refer the dispute to arbitration. According to the learned counsel it is not the form but the substance of the clause which has to be considered while interpreting the clause in question".;