S.P.PATHAK, J. - (1.) THIS Misc. Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as the Arbitration Act) has been filed against the order dated 25.5.2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Jhalawar, whereby application moved under section 9 of the Arbitration Act has been rejected.
(2.) NECESSARY facts for the disposal of the appeal are that appellant is a construction company. A tender was submitted by the Company for the completion of work in relation to construct an Anicut near Ramdi Village in Kalisindh River. The tender was accepted in March, 2007 and ultimately on account of non-performance of the contract, the contract was cancelled. The appellant moved an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act before the District Judge, Jhalawar that came to be decided on 25.5.2009. Hence this misc. appeal has been preferred. The contention of the learned counsel is that the learned District Judge committed illegality in not allowing the application moved under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. It is contended that inspite of the fact that there exist a clause in the agreement namely clause No.23 for decision of all disputes to be decided by the Standing Committee then also the appellant had a right to move straight away application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sundarram Finance Ltd. vs. NEPC India Ltd. Reported in 1999(2) SCC page 479 and Firm Ashok Traders & Anr. vs. Gurumukh Das Saluja & Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC page 1433. I have carefully considered the submissions and the authorities cited by the learned counsel. It is suffice to say that the authorities submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable for the simple reason that in the present matter there exists an agreement containing clause No.23 regarding Standing Committee that deals with the entire matters relating to disputes in relation to the agreement. This provision has been made for the reason that initially the disputes are required to be presented before the Standing Committee constituted for its decision by parties to the contract agreement. The learned trial court after hearing the parties and finding that the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act was not required to be allowed, dismissed the same. The learned trial court also took into consideration the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1896/2008 (State of Rajasthan vs. M/s Chhisal & Hemal Construction Co.). In view of above, finding no merit in this appeal, the same is liable to be dismissed summarily. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed summarily.;