1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 363/2011 (M.I.D.C. VERSUS M/S PRABHAKAR GANESH BACCHEWAR) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M.M. Agnihotri, counsel for the petitioner. Shri B.G. Kulkarni, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 13 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner-Corporation impugns the order passed by the trial Court on 09.03.2010 allowing an application filed by the respondent for modification of the order passed by the trial Court on 22.04.2009 sending the matter to the Superintending Engineer of Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation for arbitration. It appears that on an application made by the petitioner-Corporation in a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of an amount of Rs.5,40,39,056/- under Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure for referring the matter to the arbitrator, the Superintending Engineer of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation, the trial Court by an order dated 22.04.2009 allowed the application filed by the petitioner-Corporation and referred the matter to the Superintending Engineer for arbitration. An objection was 2 raised by the respondent to the prayer made by the petitioner- Corporation for referring the matter to the Superintending Engineer and the respondent also filed an application for modification of the order passed by the Court on 22.04.2009 referring the matter to the Superintending Engineer. It appears that by the impugned order dated 09.03.2010, the trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent and directed the parties to suggest the name of the arbitrator so as to refer the matter to arbitration, on the basis of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) 2 SCC 337 (Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & another Versus Motorola India Private Limited) and AIR 1980 SC 1522 (The State of U.P. Versus Tipper Chand). The learned counsel for the petitioner- Corporation as well as the respondent agree that it is not necessary to refer this matter for arbitration as there is no arbitration clause in the agreement entered between the petitioner-Corporation and the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent agree that the matter need not be sent to arbitration and it is necessary for the trial Court to proceed with the suit filed by the respondent for recovery of the amount. Since there is no arbitration clause in the agreement entered into between the petitioner-Corporation and the respondent and since the parties agree that the suit should proceed against the petitioner-Corporation, the impugned orders dated 09.03.2010 and 22.04.2009 should not be acted upon and in stead the trial Court should proceed with the suit filed by the respondent against the petitioner- Corporation for recovery of the amount. 3 Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, in view of the agreement between the parties on the issue involved in this writ petition, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to proceed with the suit filed by the respondent. No order as to costs. JUDGE APTE