1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.152 OF 2006 Soni Juneja. ... Petitioner vs. Dilsa Distributors. .... Respondent. --- Mr.S.K.Chaurasiya i/b. A.M.Saraogi, for Petitioner. Mr.Snehal Shah i/b. M/s.Thakore Jariwala & Associates, for Respondent. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH,J. DATED: 20th September,2006 P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the Award made by the Arbitral Tribunal which is the Arbitral Tribunal nominated by a trade body viz. Indian Motion Picture Distributors' Association. The petitioner admittedly has not appeared before the arbitral tribunal though admittedly he was served with the notice. The only ground argued before me for challenging the Award is that there is no valid arbitration clause between the parties and though this contention was raised by the petitioner in a letter addressed to the Arbitral 2 Tribunal, the Arbitral Tribunal has not decided it. Perusal of the record shows that the petitioner who is a producer of the movie entered into an agreement with the respondent for distribution of that movie. As a condition of that agreement, the movie was to be registered with the Association of the Distributors. Therefore, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 25.8.2004 to the Association requesting them to register the movie and agreeing that in case any dispute arises between the petitioner and the respondent in relation to the distribution, exhibition and exploitation of the said movie, the dispute would be referred to the Executive Committee of that association. On the same day the petitioner wrote a letter to the respondent wherein it is stated thus:- " You further agree and confirm that you are not entitled to appoint any sub-distributors or sub-agents without our prior written consent. You further agree that in case of any dispute, it shall not be mandatory to refer the same for the adjudication of IMPDA or any of its sub-committees.” According to the petitioner because of the above said clause in the letter dated 25.8.2004 the arbitration clause contained in the letter of the same date i.e. 25.8.2004 is cancelled. The submission obviously is not well founded. The arbitration clause has come into existence between the parties because the petitioner wanted registration of the movie with the association. The arbitration clause has come into existence as a condition of registration of the movie, therefore, so long as the movie continues to be registered the arbitration clause 3 continues to exist. Even otherwise, perusal of the above quoted clause shows that it does not cancel the arbitration agreement, all that it says is that it is not mandatory to refer the dispute to the committee. In other words, the reference of dispute to arbitration is made optional by that clause. Therefore, it cannot be said that the arbitration clause was cancelled and therefore, in my opinion, there is no question of the Arbitral Tribunal not having jurisdiction to entertain the claim made by the respondent. 2. The petitioner, admittedly, did not appear before the Arbitral Tribunal. No reason is given as to why the petitioner did not appear before the Arbitral Tribunal to contest the matter or even for contesting the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, there is no justification in interfering with the Award made by the Arbitral tribunal. 3. The petition is disposed of. The petitioner is directed to pay as and by way of cost of this petition to the respondent as incurred by the respondent. ---