Mir Dara Sheko, J. - (1.) Heard Mr Mukherjee being assisted by Ms Chatterjee appearing for the petitioner-defendant. Heard also Mr Sen representing the opposite partiesplaintiffs. Perused the materials on record and the impugned order.
(2.) Mr Mukherjee criticizing the impugned order dated January 21, 2016 passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) 3rd Court at Howrah in Title Suit No.129 of 2013 and counter suit being Title Suit No.105 of 2014 filed by the petitioner-defendant (being tried analogously) rejecting an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dated August 12, 2015 filed by the petitioner submitted that while in clause 15 of the arbitration agreement there was arbitration clause between his client and the landlord of the premises in question, and when the petitioner had filed the application to refer the matter for settlement by appointing an arbitrator, rejection of such application suffers from illegality and perversity.
(3.) In support of his submission Mr Mukherjee relied upon the following decisions: a) Case of P. Anand Gajapathi Ranu & Ors. v. P.V.G. Raju (died) & Ors., 2000 AIR(SC) 1886; b) Case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums, 2003 6 SCC 503; c) Case of Agri Gold Exims Ltd. v. Sri Lakshmi Knits & Wovens & Ors., 2007 3 SCC 686; and d) Case of Branch Manager, Magma Leasing and Finance Limited & Anr. v. Potluri Madhavilata & Anr., 2009 10 SCC 103.;