M.Y. Eqbal, J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of M/s. Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. is directed against the order dated 14.6.1995 passed by Sub -Judge IV. Dhanbad in Title (Arbitration) Suit No. 160/94 whereby he has allowed the application filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 and directed the General Manager (Sales) of the appellant, Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. to resolve the dispute which has been raised by the respondent as per Clause 23 of the Agreement.
(2.) MR . A. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that Clause 23 of the Agreement is not Arbitration Clause in as much as it neither speaks for reference of disputes to arbitration nor provides that the dispute, if any, shall be resolved by invoking the Arbitration Clause. In order to appreciate the submission of the learned counsel, I would like to quote herein below Clause 23 of the Agreement, which reads as under : - - "The decision of General Manager (sales) relating to any dispute or difference shall be final."
(3.) FROM perusal of the aforesaid clause, it appears that the parties decided, to get their dispute referred and it has to be resolved by the General Manager (Sales) and it was agreed that his decision should be final. Section 2 of the Arbitration Act defines the term "arbitration agreement" which means a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration whether an arbitrator is named therein or not. It is well settled that normally in all the contracts Arbitration Clause is inserted so that parties to the agreement, in case of any dispute or difference, may sort out their dispute before the authority without approaching the Court of law.;