- (1.) The Court: The petitioner was appointed a handling contractc r by the first respondent. The relevant agreement contained an arbitration clause.
(2.) Upon disputes havi.ng arisen, the petitioner instituted a suit in the Malda Court seeking a declaration that the first respondent's attempt to terminate the agreement was invalid and an injunction restraining the firs respondent from giving any effect to the notice of termination. In such suit, the first respondent applied for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the Malda Court did not have the authority to receive such suit. Such application was based on the forum selection clause found in the agreement at Clause 20.
(3.) Such application was dismissed by an order of February 7, 2001. The first respondent thereafter applied, inter alia, under section 8 of tb e Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for the disposal or dismissal of the Malda suit on the ground that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties and adjudication of the disputes under the agreement could only be by way of such arbitration. The petitioner resisted such application. An order was passed on July 3, 2003 dismissing: such application with reasons that appear to be ex facie alarming. It is the reading of the learned Judge that Clause 19 of the agreement did not specifically menticm that the matter should 1 e referred to the Arbitrator in case of termination of contract. On such speck us reasoning the learned Judge dismissed the respondents's application. It is also necessary to note that in the previous pages the learned Judge recorded tha t the plaintiff in that suit, the petitioner herein, had contested such application by filing a written objection and by "denying the: material allegations of the petition.".;