- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The respondent Apex Computer Services Pvt. Ltd. filed Original Suit No. 820 of 2004 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Agra, praying for the recovery of Rs. 37, 64, 214 (Rupees Thirty Seven Lacs Sixty Four Thousand Two hundred and Fourteen only) alongwith interest at the rate of Rs. 10. 75% as per. the claim detailed in paragraphs 20 to 70 of the plaint, which indicates that the plaintiff raised ten different claims against the petitioner. Upon the receipt of the summons, the petitioner immediately filed an application under Section 8 (1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying that the claim and the issues raised in the suit be referred for arbitration in terms of Section 17. 1 of the agreement entered between the petitioner and the plaintiff-respondent.
(2.) IT was pleaded by the petitioner that the respondent had entered into an agreement on 1-9-1989 known as "n. I. I. T. Licence Agreement" with the petitioner, whereby the petitioner had granted a licence to the respondents to set up and operate an N. I. I. T. education centre at Agra on certain terms and conditions as mentioned in the agreement. This agreement was for a period of three years which was renewed from time to time and, finally it was last renewed on 30-9-1998 w. e. f. 1-12-1998 for a period of three years. The petitioner, in its application, submitted that the term of the agreement expired on 30- 11-2001 and was not renewed thereafter. The petitioner contended that the agreement contained an arbitration clause wherein it was agreed that all claims, disputes and differences arising out of the agreement would be referred for arbitration. The petitioner contended that the respondent was bound by the said agreement and that claim Nos. 1 to 10 raised by the respondents in their suit had arisen out of the above agreement and that the subject-matter of the action in the above suit was covered by the agreement. The petitioner, therefore, prayed that the claim of the respondent should be referred for arbitration in terms of Section 17. 1 of the agreement and that the suit be dismissed. The plaintiff-respondent filed their objection and admitted that an agreement was entered between the plaintiff-respondent and the petitioner, which was renewed from time to time and further admitted that the agreement also contained an arbitration clause. The respondent, however, submitted that the arbitration clause was not attracted inasmuch as, the claim of the plaintiff for a large part pertained to a period after 30-11- 2001, i. e. , after the expiry of the term of the agreement, when there was no agreement in existence between the plaintiff and the defendant and that both the parties had not agreed to refer the matter for arbitration as required by the arbitration clause under the agreement. The trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the application of the petitioner holding that even though claim Nos. 1 to 9 arose out of the agreement, claim No. 10 raised in the suit could not be referred to the arbitrator as it did not arise out of the agreement. The trial Court held that Claim No. 10 could not be said to have arisen out of the agreement entered between the parties because the said claim had arisen after the expiry of the agreement and that the said claim was independent to the said agreement. The trial Court further found that the Claim No. 10 had arisen due to the non-renewal of the licence agreement and that the said claim related to the arrangements made by the plaintiff-respondent for the students education after the expiry of the agreement. The trial Court while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Sukanya Holdings (P) Ltd. v. Jayesh H. Pandya & Anr. , (2003) 5 SCC 531, held that since one part of the claim of the plaintiff was not related to the agreement, consequently, the matter could not be referred for arbitration and that the civil Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.
(3.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order of the trial Court, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for the quashing of the order dated 5-9-2005 passed by the trial Court. Heard Sri K. L. Grover, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by Sri Ramesh Singh, Advocate and Sri Ravi Kant, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent assisted by Sri Anjani Kumar Mishra, Advocate for the respondent.;