C.R.No.4461 of 2011 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4461 of 2011 Date of Order: 26.7.2011 M/s Top Gear Marketers (P) Ltd .....Petitioner Vs. H.F.C.L Infotel Company and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Atul Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Plaintiff-petitioner has assailed the order dated 17.5.2011 (P.5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh whereby in a suit for damages, he has been directed to pay ad valorem court fee. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner submits that with regard to the issue of call handling service, there was an agreement between the plaintiff-petitioner and respondent-company HFCL and in view of the agreement clause 9.1, the Court is bound to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. After hearing learned counsel for the plaintiff-petitioner, I find that the plea raised is untenable. It is the petitioner, who has filed a suit for damages specifying the claim of Rs.16,68,000/- on account of the defendant-Company/HFCL having violated one of the alleged clauses of the agreement, which prohibited the employing of the staff of the petitioner- plaintiff. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Company filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for C.R.No.4461 of 2011 #2# reference to the Arbitrator as far back as on 16.7.2005 and an objection was taken by the petitioner-plaintiff that the same cannot be referred to the Arbitrator since the mandatory provisions of annexing the agreement in original or its certified copy were not complied with. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner-plaintiff has already quantified his claim for damages and in such a situation, the finding of the court below in respect of affixation of the court fee cannot be violated. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no ground to interfere with the order dated 17.5.2011 (P.5) passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Chandigarh warranting any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Dismissed. July 26, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE