1 arbap152-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.152 OF 2009 Premier Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. ....Applicant V/s. M/s.River View Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent Mr.Subhash P. Nalavade for the Applicant. Mr.Aditya Thakkar with Ms.Sonal Awasthi i/b M/s.Vinod Mistry & Co. for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 9TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. :- 1. This is an application under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. The Respondent admittedly issued a work order dated 3.5.2007 which contains the following clause. “6. If any, disputes shall be settled by Architect or Arbitrators” 3. The above clause does not establish an arbitration agreement. The parties have the option to have the disputes settled by the Architect or by the Arbitrators. In other words, upon the dispute arising between the parties, they must agree whether to have the same settled by the Architect or by the Arbitrators. 4. It is difficult to construe the clause to mean that the Architect refers in fact to an Arbitrator. Had that been so, the clause would not have 2 arbap152-09 stated “Architect or Arbitrators”. In fact the Architect had been appointed. It is the Architect who had issued the work order. This further establishes that the parties had opted to have the dispute settled by the Architect or by the Arbitrators. Whether to have the same settled by the Architect or by the Arbitrator would require a further agreement. 5. In the circumstances, the arbitration application is dismissed.