The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. vs J. Vijaya Kumar

G. Rajasuria, J.—Inveighing the order dated 29.06.2007, passed by the learned VI Asst. City Civil Judge, in I.A. No. 12076 of 2006 in

O.S. No. 2103 of 2006, this civil revision petition is focussed.

Heard both sides.

A ''resume'' of facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:

(i) The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit O.S. No. 2103 of 2006 seeking the following reliefs:

a) granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, his men, agents, servants and others from interfering in any manner with the plaintiff''s

possession and enjoyment of the suit property, except by due process of law;

b) directing the defendant to pay the costs of the suit; and

c) for such other relief or reliefs as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper.

(ii) The revision petitioner/defendant entered appearance and filed I.A. No. 12076 of 2007 u/s 8 of the Arbitration Act seeking the following relief:

To refer the matter to arbitration in terms of Clause 23 of the Licence Deed, dated 29.11.2004 entered into between the plaintiff and the

defendant.

After hearing both sides, the lower Court dismissed the I.A. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, this revision has

been filed on various ground.

The learned Counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that as per

Clause 23 of the agreement which emerged between the plaintiff and the respondent, if there is any dispute relating to the licence, certainly it is for

the parties to approach the arbitrator concerned by invoking the said Clause and it is not open for the respondent/plaintiff to approach the Civil

Court.

At this juncture, I would like to set out here under the trite proposition of law to the effect that u/s 9 of the Arbitration Act, a party to the

agreement can very well approach the Court concerned seeking injunction as interim relief, pending arbitration as arbitrator has no power to grant

injunction. As such, in that view of the matter the lower Court''s observation that the suit is maintainable is tenable.

It is the precise case of the respondent/ defendant that as per Clause 23 of the arbitration agreement, the matter should be referred to the

arbitrator. I am at a loss to understand as to why the revision petitioner/The Managing Director, Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd. should

expect the respondent/plaintiff to approach the arbitrator. It is open for him to take steps to refer the matter for arbitration by invoking Clause 23

of the arbitration agreement. Accordingly I would like to dispose of this civil revision petition with the finding that it is open for the revision

petitioner to take steps to invoke Clause 23 of the agreement for referring the matter to the arbitrator and the matter shall be processed de hors the

suit.

Accordingly, this civil revision petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.