- (1.) THE petitioner is the defendant in Money Suit No.565/2008 instituted by the plaintiff/opposite party. A petition was filed by the defendant/petitioner under Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 on December 15, 2008. An objection regarding maintainability of the suit in question before the Civil Court was raised therein on the plea that in view of the agreement between the parties, their inter-se disputes and differences ought to be resolved by an arbitrator appointed on mutual agreement.
(2.) THE plaintiff/opposite party instituted the suit on the allegation that the defendant/petitioner had committed breach of contract and was, therefore, liable for damages. The petition of the defendant/petitioner was taken up for consideration by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), 6th Court, District 24 Parganas (South) at Alipore. By Order No. 14 dated June 2, 2010, the petition was dismissed on contest without order for costs. The defendant/petitioner calls in question this order of the learned Judge in this application under Article 227 of the Constitution. Mr. Ghoshal, learned counsel appearing for the defendant/petitioner invited my attention to the tender notice floated by the plaintiff/opposite party dated May 26, 2006 in pursuance whereof the defendant/petitioner had offered its bid in respect of office refurbishment. In particular, he referred to clause 10 thereof which reads as under : 10. Arbitration : in the event of any dispute or difference arising or occurring between the parties in relation to anything or any matter arising out of or under this Tender, the same shall be referred for arbitration to a sole Arbitrator to be mutually agreed between the parties. The decision of the sole arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties. The arbitration shall be conducted at Calcutta.
(3.) ACCORDING to him, the learned Judge on the face of such clause committed gross error of jurisdiction in not dismissing the suit and relegating the dispute and difference between the parties to arbitration. In support of his contention, Mr. Ghoshal relied on several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, viz. Owners and Parties Interested in the Vessel M.V. "Baltic Confidence" v. State Trading Corpn. of India Ltd. reported in (2001) 7 SCC 473 (A and B), Citibank, N.A. v. TLC Marketing PLC, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 481, Mahesh Agarwal v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. reported in 2008 (2) CLJ 279, Tata Industries Ltd. v. Grasim Industries Ltd. reported in (2008) 10 SCC 187, BSNL v. Telephone Cables Ltd. reported in (2010) 5 SCC 213, National Agricultural Coop. Marketing Federation India Ltd. v. Gains Trading Ltd., reported in (2007) 5 SCC 692, UNISSI (India) (P) Ltd. v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research reported in (2009) 1 SCC 107, and Magma Leasing and Finance Ltd. v. Potluri Madhavilata, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 103.;