1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3463 OF 2005 WITH SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT NO. 114 OF 2005 IN SUM.SUIT NO.1498 OF 2004 Mohan Dagdoba Gaikwad. .. Plaintiff. vs. Pritam Ramesh Kalan & Anr. .. Defendants. Mr. R.K. Singh for plaintiff. Mr. Narendra Jain i/by S.K. Jain for defendants 1 & 2. CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J. CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J. CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J. DATE : 23rd January,2006. DATE : 23rd January,2006. DATE : 23rd January,2006. P.C. . The present notice of motion has been taken out under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for referring the differences and disputes in the present suit to arbitration in accordance with clause 24 of the agreement. The said clause 24 of the agreement reads as under :- 2 "24. It is agreed between the parties hereto that, in case of any dispute regarding the interpretation of any terms of this Agreement and/or the covenant herein contend, then the same shall be referred to Shri Prakash J. Sonmale who shall at as a sole arbitrator as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and his decision shall be final." This agreement is executed between the parties for the purpose of advancing of loan by the plaintiff to the defendant. 2. It is the case of the defendant that all the disputes under this agreement were settled and the defendants issued a cheque which has been dishonoured and for the purpose of recovery of the said dishonoured cheque the present suit is filed. It is the case of the defendants that in view of the fact that the dispute is in respect of the dishonoured cheque and the correspondence which is annexed at Exhibits C-1 onwards, it is clear that there is no dispute requiring arbitration under clause 24 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and, therefore, the matter should not be referred to arbitration. In so far as the aforesaid contention is concerned, it is an admitted position that the agreement is only for the amount of loan 3 lent and advanced and that the suit is for recovery thereof under the suit agreement. The cheque for repayment was also issued under the said agreement and that the said cheque has been dishonoured. The present suit is filed for recovery of the amount of the said loan lent and advanced under the said agreement at Exhibit A to the plaint. In that light of the matter, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that there are no disputes requiring arbitration. In that light of the matter, the present notice of motion is made absolute. The issues arising in the present suit and which may be raised in a reply or a counter claim by the defendants are referred to the arbitration of Mr. S.M. Jhunjhunuwala, retired Judge of this Court for resolving the same. In view of the fact that the suit itself is referred to arbitration, the present summons for judgment does not survive any further. The notice of motion and the summons for judgment as well as the suit all are disposed of accordingly. Rights of the parties henceforth will be governed by the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The arbitrator to decide the disputes and differences between the parties in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.