BHARTI CELLULAR LIMITED REPRESENTED BY ITS SR MANAGER Vs. SHRI KOPPUDAYAL COMMUNICATIONS REPRESENTED BY IT MANAGING PARTER MR M KARAM CHANDRA MOHAN AND BANK OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY IT BRANCH MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order passed in I.A. No. 29 of 2007 in O.S. No. 37 of 2005 by the petitioner herein/2nd defendant in the suit, wherein the application filed by the petitioner to refer the dispute to the arbitrator, was dismissed.

(2.) The suit has been filed in O.S. No. 37 of 2005 on the file of the Learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai by the respondent herein, seeking the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from invoking the bank guarantee. Pending the suit, an application has been filed by the petitioner herein in I.A. No. 29 of 2007 on the ground that the petitioner is amalgamated with Bharti Televentures Limited in pursuance of the order of amalgamation passed by the High Court, Delhi. It was further stated in the application that in view of the specific clause in the agreement between the parties namely Clause 16 of the Franchisee Agreement providing for an arbitrator in term of Arbitration Conciliation Act 1996, the dispute should be referred to the arbitrator.

(3.) On the contrary, the respondents/plaintiff contended before the trial Court that the amalgamation have been done behind the back of the plaintiff and cannot bind the plaintiff and it was further submitted that as per Clause 16(4), the arbitration can be invoked only when the agreement is not terminated. In other words, it was submitted that when the agreements got terminated as in the present case, the arbitration clause as mentioned under Clause 16 cannot be pressed into service.