- (1.) This petition has been filed against the order dated 28.09.2010, passed by the Additional District and Session Judge No.1, Jaipur City, Jaipur dismissing an application filed by the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter 'the defendant') under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1996'). The court below has held that the money suit laid by the respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter 'the plaintiff') for recovery of certain amounts from the defendant under agreements dated 01.03.2002 / 18.05.2005 was maintainable and unaffected by arbitration clauses No.21/65 of the two aforesaid agreements which provided that "any dispute, difference or question which may arise at any time between the Principal and the Distributor inter alia to the rights and liability of the parties, shall be referred to the decision of a single arbitrator to be agreed upon between the parties or in default of agreement to be appointed at the request of either of the parties in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 or any statutory modification thereto."
(2.) The facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a money suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,084,27.62/- against the defendant. It was stated that the defendant was appointed as the dealer and distributor for the sale of Air Compressors in the State of Rajasthan. Under the distributorship, material was supplied to the defendant from time to time on credit. Thereupon payment was due and outstanding by the defendant to the plaintiff. It was submitted that in spite of the defendant admitting in writing that a sum of Rs.17,24,355.62/- as due as of 01.04.2006, the said amount was not paid and therefore recoverable along with interest aggregating to an amount of Rs.20,084,27.62/-. It was prayed that amount claimed be decreed along with future interest. On service of notice of the money suit, the defendant filed an application under Section 8 of the Act of 1996 stating that in view of the distributorship agreement dated 01.03.2002 as also a subsequent dealership agreement dated 18.05.2005, the subject matter of the money suit was only amenable to arbitration under arbitration clauses 21 and 65 in the aforesaid agreements and the civil court had no jurisdiction. The plaintiff however opposed the application under Section 8 of the Act of 1996. It was denied that the civil suit as filed for recovery of money payable admitted by the defendant was not maintainable. It was submitted that the arbitration clauses in the agreement dated 01.03.2002 and 18.05.2005 were invokable only in the event of a dispute between the parties which was absent in view of the defendant's admission in writing as of 01.04.2006 that Rs.17,24,355.62/- was due.
(3.) The learned trial court on consideration of the matter proceeded to uphold the contention of the plaintiff. Consequently, the trial court held that there was no dispute with regard thereto and consequently arbitration clause No.21 under the agreement dated 01.03.2002 and clause 65 under the agreement dated 18.05.2005 were not attracted. The plaintiff's money suit was held to be maintainable and the application under Section 8 of the Act of 1996 was dismissed. Hence this petition.;