C.R.No.4348 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4348 of 2011 Date of decision: 21.7.2011 Tahir and another ….Petitioners Vs. M/s Citi Corp. Finance India Ltd and another ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh, J Plaintiff-petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 14.6.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nuh (Mewat) vide which the suit pending between the parties has been referred to Arbitrator. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioners, namely, Yaqub Khan filed a Civil Suit No.1322 of 2005 before the learned trial Court for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-respondents from interfering in the peaceful possession and use of commercial vehicle No.HR 55-D-4520. During the pendency of the said suit, an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “1996 Act”) was filed by the defendants-respondents for referring the matter to the Arbitrator in view of the Arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court vide its impugned order dated 14.6.2011 allowed the application and referred the C.R.No.4348 of 2011 #2# matter to arbitrator, hence the present petition. It is argued by learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioners that the dispute raised in the civil suit is not covered under the said arbitration clause of the agreement and moreover neither the original agreement nor certified copy of the same was annexed with the application filed under Section 8 of 1996 Act by the defendant-respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. So far as the argument that the dispute is not covered under the Arbitration clause is not tenable in view of the clause 16 of the Arbitration agreement, which reads as under: “16. All disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of these presents or as to the construction, meaning or effect thereof or as to the rights and liabilities of the parties hereunder shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Delhi in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, or any statutory amendments thereof or any statute enacted for replacement thereof and shall be referred to the sole arbitration of a person to be nominated/appointed by CFIL. In the event of death, refusal, neglect, inability or incapability of the persons so appointed to act as an arbitrator, CFIL may appoint a new arbitrator. The award, including the interim award/s of the arbitrator shall be final and binding on all parties concerned. The arbitrator may lay down from time to time the procedure to be followed by him in conducting arbitration proceedings and shall conduct arbitration proceedings in such manner as he considers appropriate. Any proceedings to be initiated in any court of law in pursuance of this arbitration shall be instituted and held in the court at Delhi only.” A perusal of clause 16 reproduced hereinabove clearly reveals C.R.No.4348 of 2011 #3# that all the disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of the agreement including its construction, meaning as well as rights and liabilities of the parties shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of 1996 Act. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff-petitioners that the dispute raised in the civil suit is not covered by the arbitration clause No.16 is wholly untenable and liable to be rejected as the dispute raised in the present civil suit was very much covered within the ambit of clause 16 referred above. As regards the plea that neither original nor certified copy of the agreement as required by Section 8(2) of 1996 Act was not annexed with the application by the defendant-respondents is not acceptable in view of the fact that it is no where substantiated from the impugned order that such a plea was ever raised by the plaintiff-petitioners before the learned trial Court at the time of hearing. Even the plaintiff-petitioners have not placed on record the copy of their reply, if any filed to the application dated 20.10.2005 (P.3) under Section 8 for referring the matter to the Arbitration for the reasons best known to them. Therefore, at this stage it is too late for the plaiintiffs-petitioners to contend that neither original nor certified copy of the agreement was annexed with the application under Section 8 of 1996 Act. Still further, it is admitted case of the plaintiff-petitioners themselves that a photo copy of the said agreement was very much available on the file. Law is well settled by Hon'ble the Supreme Court that if there is an arbitration clause between the parties covering the dispute pending before a judicial authority and an application is made not later than submission of first statement, the matter shall be referred to the Arbitration. Admittedly, in the present case, the suit was filed on 24.8.2005 and the C.R.No.4348 of 2011 #4# application under Section 8 of 1996 Act was filed on 20.10.2005. Therefore, the learned trial Court, in my view, has rightly allowed the application of the defendants-respondents filed under Section 8 of 1996 Act while referring the matter to the Arbitration. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order dated 14.6.2011 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Nuh (Mewat) warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. July 21, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE