IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 527 of 2009. Date of decision: 9.8.2010 M/s Vikas Traders Petitioner. Versus M/s Shree Goptal Impex Pvt. Ltd and others. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. H.K.Verma, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed against the judgement dated 27.4.2009 delivered by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan in Civil Appeal No.15-S/14 of 2008 whereby he confirmed the order dated 9.6.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kasauli, District Solan in CMA No.76/6 of 2008 in Civil Suit No.122/1 of 2006 and referred the dispute between the parties to Arbitration. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.4,96,318/- from the respondents. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he was appointed as a Super Stockist 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes. 2 by the defendants sometime in the month of September, 2002 and had started functioning as such in October, 2002. According to the petitioner, the terms and conditions of the agreement had been settled at Parwanoo but no specific averments were made that such terms and conditions had been settled in writing or orally. 3. The defendants filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Conciliation Act and annexed an agreement dated 10th October, 2002 which contained an arbitration clause. This application was contested by the plaintiff. While contesting this application the plaintiff came up with the plea that it had originally received a letter dated 1 October, 2002 sent by the defendant but since it did not agree with certain terms and conditions of the letter the plaintiff refused to sign the same. It is not denied that the agreement dated 10th October, 2002 has been signed on behalf of the plaintiff. However, it is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the basic question in dispute is whether the plaintiff was appointed as a Super Stockist or as an Consignee Agent and this was the issue which the trial Court should have decided before referring the matter to the arbitrator. 3 4. I am not at all in agreement with the contention raised by the petitioner. The merits of the disputes have to be decided by the Court of the Arbitrator, who has the jurisdiction to decide the same. It is apparent from the pleadings of the plaintiff itself that it had not agreed to sign the agreement dated 1st October, 2002. Therefore, it cannot now turn around and rely upon this document. The case of the plaintiff is that the terms were settled orally between the parties. This prima- facie cannot be accepted in view of the fact that admittedly there is a written agreement between the parties which contain an arbitration clause. 5. What was the relationship between the parties; whether the plaintiff was a Consignee Agent or Super Stockist are questions which the Arbitral Tribunal must decide. The questions cannot be decided in proceeding under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The merits of the rival contentions of the parties must be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal. 6. Therefore, the petition is dismissed with costs assessed at Rs.2,000/-. 9th August, 2010 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™