1 wp9710-10 jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9710 OF 2010 M/s Tata motors Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Mrs. Kusum Madan More & another .. Respondents Mr. S. M.Suryawanshi for the petitioner Mr. M.L. More for respondent no.1 CORAM : R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 10rd October, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. Mr. M.L. More, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 waives service of the petition. Presence of respondent no.2 is not required to decide the petition. By consent, the petition is taken up for hearing. 3. Respondent no.1 filed Regular Civil Suit No. 391 in the court of learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Pune. Respondent no.1 wanted to seek damages from the petitioner. The said claim arose out of the agreement dated 31st March, 2005, by which respondent no.1 borrowed the loan from the petitioner. Soon after filing of the suit and before filing the written statement, the petitioner filed an application below Exh. 18 under section 8 of the Arbitration & 2 wp9710-10 Conciliation Act, 1996, praying that the dispute covered by the aforesaid suit be referred to Arbitrator, as per clause 34 of the agreement dated 31st March, 2005. That application was rejected by the learned 8th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune by order dated 21st September. 2010. This petition is filed so as to challenge the said order dated 21st September, 2010. 4. I have heard the learned advocates on both the sides. 5. Perusal of the aforesaid suit clearly goes to show that the dispute raised in the suit arose out of the loan agreement dated 31st Marh, 2005. According to the respondent, an amount more than the loan amount was paid and this is how, the compensation is sought by respondent no.1 from the petitioner. 6. After having heard advocates on both the sides, it is clear that the dispute raised in the Suit falls within the ambit of agreement dated 21st March, 2005. Parties to the said agreement are parties, namely the petitioner and respondent no.1. Respondent No.2- M/s Pandit Automobiltes Pvt. Ltd. is joined in the aforesaid petition primarily because car was delivered by the respondent No.2. In order to resolve the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent no.1, presence of respondent No.2 M/s Pandit Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. is not required. 7. In view of the above, the impugned order is required to be set aside and the parties will have to be referred to the Arbitrator as per clause 34 of the agreement dated 21st March, 2005. Learned advocate for respondent no.1 submits that one arbitration proceedings bearing No. TML/ARB/Case No. 3 wp9710-10 ARBIT-2223 OF 2009 is pending between the petitioner and the respondent no.1. Learned Counsel for the respondent no.1 suggests that he has no objection, if the Arbitrator attending the aforesaid arbitration proceedings is also appointed as an Arbitrator in respect of this case and the dispute raised in the present suit be referred to him and the same would form a part and parcel of the arbitration proceedings which are mentioned above. In view of this, following order is passed to dispose of the petition. i. The impugned order dated 21st September, 2010 passed by the learned 8th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune below Exh.18 in Regular Civil Suit no. 391 of 2010 is set aside. ii. The dispute raised in the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit no. 391 of 2010 is referred to the Arbitrator who is presently attending Arbitration proceedings bearing No. TML/ARB/Case No. ARBIT-2223 OF 2009 and the dispute covered by the aforesaid suit shall form part and parcel of the dispute to be decided by the said Arbitrator in the aforesaid arbitration proceedings. iii. Learned advocate for the respondent would place this order before the learned 8th Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune and seek appropriate orders as regards disposal of the suit. iv. There shall be no order as to costs. (R. Y. GANOO, J.)