Soumen Sen, J. - (1.) The plaintiff is a travel agent. The defendant no.1 is a carrier. The defendant no.1 is a member of the defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 represents about 250 airlines. In order to enable the travel agent to have a business with any carrier who is a member of the defendant no.2, such travel agent is required to be an accredited agent of the defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 is essentially functioning as a conduit between a travel agent and the carrier and regulate the activities between the two. The plaintiff became an accredited agent of the defendant no.2 in terms of an agreement dated 13th August, 2002. A bare reading of the plaint would show that the dispute is arising out the said Passenger Sales Agency Agreement. The defendant no.2 is, in fact, has entered into the said agreement for and on behalf of the members of IATA. Admittedly, the defendant no.1 is a member of IATA. The said agreement amongst other contains an arbitration clause, namely, Clause 14 which reads: "14.ARBITRATION if any matter is reviewed by arbitration pursuant to the Sales Agency Rules, the Agent hereby submits to arbitration in accordance with such Rules and agrees to observe the procedures therein provided and to abide by any arbitration award made thereunder."
(2.) The said agreement also refers to the travel agent's handbook which forms part of the Passenger Sales Agency Agreement. The handbook in Clause 14 also contains an arbitration clause which reads: "14.ARBITRATION if any matter is reviewed by arbitration pursuant to the Sales Agency Rules, the Agent hereby submits to arbitration in accordance with such Rules and agrees to observe the procedures therein provided and to abide by any arbitration award made thereunder."
(3.) The said agreements read together clearly show that if an agent has any dispute with the carrier arising out of the said agreements. Then the dispute is required to be resolved through arbitration.;