1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1651 OF 2010 Mrudula Khandekar .. Petitioner V/s Vaishali Sameer Malpathak @ Vaishali Bhaskar Mohite .. Respondent Mr. K.A. Chotani for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 18TH JUNE 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18th April 2008 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune rejecting the petitioner’s application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “Arbitration Act”). 3. The respondent is a contractor and interior designer. The petitioner was a client and appointed the respondent to do certain work of interior decoration of a flat. The petitioner made part payment of the bills for the work done. After the final bill, the matter was settled and the petitioner issued a 2 cheque for Rs.97,900/- to the respondent. That cheque was dishonoured. Hence, he respondent filed the suit for recovery. The petitioner appeared in the suit and contended that there was a written contract between the petitioner and the respondent regarding interior decoration which contained an arbitration clause. She therefore applied for stay of the suit and prayed that the parties be referred to arbitration under section 8 of the Arbitration Act. 4. Clause 12 of the agreement reads thus: “Any dispute between client & designer is not standard and professional practice. Unfortunately if such thing happens the same should be solved by arbitrator and the arbitrator is Advocate Shri Sunil Patil.” The question which requires consideration is whether the claim made by the petitioner is covered by the arbitration agreement. 5. In the plaint, the respondent has stated that the final bill raised by her was for Rs.1,75,664/- out of which Rs.70,000/- were received by her towards part payment and the balance 3 of Rs.1,05,664/- was due. In para 6, the respondent has stated that thereafter negotiations took place between the petitioner and her and the outstanding amount was finally settled at Rs.97,900/-. The petitioner accordingly delivered to the respondent a cheque for Rs.97,900/- which was dishonoured when presented for payment. The respondent has therefore filed the suit for recovery of Rs.97,900/-. It is clear that after the initial contract for the interior decoration, there was a settlement between the parties and under the settlement the petitioner agreed to settle the respondent’s final bill for Rs.97,900/-. In pursuance of the settlement, a cheque of that amount was also issued. In my view, the settlement amounts to a fresh contract which is not covered by the arbitration agreement between the parties. Hence, the learned Trial Judge committed no error in dismissing the application of the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)