(1.) THE dispute revolves around a short point which needs to be decided and that has given birth to an off-shoot in the midst of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties.
(2.) THERE was an agreement between the petitioner M/s. Mandavi Marine Pvt. Ltd. and Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. in context with construction of four ships which were to be sent to Moritius. It appears that the said project was not completed. However, initial part-payment has been made in this context. It appears that there has been some dispute between these two parties i. e. , the petitioner and opponent No. 2.
(3.) THE Bank of India-opponent No. 1 has not come in picture because a bank-guarantee has been supplied by M/s. Mandavi Marine Pvt. Ltd. as security for the purpose of performance of the part of the agreement which it has to perform. Mandavi Marine Pvt. Ltd. contends that as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, if there is a dispute between the petitioner and opponent No. 2, it has to be referred to the arbitrator. An application was moved for making a prayer to the Court to compel opponent No. 2 to produce the said agreement in the Court, and thereafter, the Court was requested to make a reference to the Arbitrator. It is pertinent to note here that the petitioner did not follow the procedure laid down by the provisions of Section 8 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 but preferred the procedure which has been indicated by the provisions of Section 20 of the Act. The Court found that the petitioner did not furnish sufficient information in the said application enabling the Court to take proper decision. Therefore, the said application was dismissed that Order has been put to challenge by this revision petition.