DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The Defendant has applied under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for reference of the disputes involved in the suit to arbitration.
(2.) Learned Advocate appearing for the defendant has submitted that, the plaintiffs entered into a tenancy agreement dated May 22, 2009. By and under such tenancy agreement, the defendant was put into possession of the suit premises as a tenant thereof. Such tenancy agreement has an arbitration agreement. He has referred to Clause 18 of the Tenancy Agreement and submitted that such Clause is the arbitration between the parties. He has submitted that, the parties had entered into a Consolidated Charges Agreement on May 22, 2009. Such Consolidated Charges Agreement also has an Arbitration Agreement at Clause 9. He has submitted that, the disputes in the suit has arisen out of the Tenancy Agreement and the Consolidated Charges Agreement. Such disputes have to be resolved through the agreed mechanism of arbitration as provided in the two agreements. In support of the contention that, the disputes in the suit can be referred to arbitration, learned Advocate appearing for the defendant has relied upon 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1018 (Vidya Drolia & Ors. v. Durga Trading Corporation).
(3.) Learned Advocate for the defendant has submitted that, where the Arbitration Agreement is not in dispute, then, the necessity to produce the original Arbitration Agreement under Section 8(2) of the Act of 1996 stands waived. In support of such contentions he has relied upon 2017 Volume 5 Supreme Court Cases 185 (Ananthesh Bhakta v. Nayana S. Bhakta & Ors.) and 2017 SCC Online Cal 13097 (Paras Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. Air India Ltd. and Anr.).;