UMESH CHANDRA BANERJEE, J. - (1.) This application arises out of an appeal against an order passed by A. K. Janah, J. on 12-4-1984, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to issue a Rule and an ex parte interim order in terms of prayer (f) of the petition which is to the following effect: "(f) Injunction do issue restraining the respondents each one of them by themselves and/or their agents, servants and/or subordinates from giving any effect or further effect and/or taking any step or further steps and/or acting or further acting and/or continue to act on the basis of the impugned orders dt. 28/30-6-1983,16-3-1984 and 7-4-1984 fully contained in Annexures 'I' and 'L' collectively hereof or withholding any payment or continue to withhold any payment out of the transport bill for the period from 1-12-1980 till 1984 and/or till date and further restraining the respondents from effecting any deduction or giving any effect or further effect to the order of deduction if any and/or the security money and/or the bills for transportation work for period from 1-12-1980 tin 1984 or till date on the basis of the said Annexures 'I' and 'L' and/or in pursuance thereto or otherwise in any manner and further directing the respondents to release and pass bills and make payments of the security money and bills in no time."
(2.) Mr. Gautam Chakraborty, appearing in support of this application, contended that the Writ-petitioners are suppliers of sand to the Bharat Coking Coal Limited and in terms of a written agreement, have been supplying sand to Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. There was discrepancy in the measurements given by the Writ-petitioners and as such certain amounts were being withheld until finalisation of such discrepancy. Mr. Chakraborty drew our attention to the arbitration clause in the agreement, which specifically provides that all disputes and differences which may arise at any time between the parties or their legal representatives, arising out of the said agreement or its subject-matter or conditions thereof, shall be referred to the sole arbitration of CME(P), BCCL concerned, whose decision thereon shall be final and binding. Mr. Chakraborty contended that in the midst of factual disputes, the interim order of the nature as appears from prayer (f) should not have been granted and in any event, the ex parte order ought not to have been passed in the facts of this case. It was further contended that the entire cause of action has arisen at Dhanbad, outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and as such, this Court has also no jurisdiction to entertain this application.
(3.) Mr. Sanjoy Bhattacharya, appearing in favour of the Writ-petitioners and the respondents in this appeal, however, contended that the Writ-petitioners are within their rights to move this High Court under Art. 226 ex parte and no complaint can be made against the order passed by the learned trial Judge. The conduct of the appellant-petitioner, in withholding the dues of the Writ-petitioners was reprehensible and the proper remedy for the Writ-petitioners would be under Art.226 of the Constitution. In this context, Mr. Bhattacharya placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Ramanna Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1628 and contended that the Writ Court is the proper forum to ventilate the grievances of the present nature.;