An agreement with a clause stating disputes 'may' be resolved through arbitration does not constitute a binding arbitration agreement under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as it does not reflect clear intention to arbitrate.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner/plaintiff is at the doors of this Court, calling in question an order dated 16-10-2024 passed by the LXXXVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in Commercial O.S.No.207 of 2024, by which the application filed by the defendant seeking reference of the matter to Arbitration comes to be allowed and consequently seeks restoration of the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

2. Heard Sri Skandan P. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Aniketh B.C. learned counsel appearing for the caveator/respondent.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

The petitioner inter alia engages in the business of operating and managing a chain of business centers/co-working space under the name of “Bhive Workspace” which provides office space to individuals and other entities for carrying out their business activities. The respondent/defendant which is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 is said to have approached the petitioner for availing its facilities and services. The petitioner then agrees to provide its co-working infrastructure facilities through an electronic agreement dated 25-07-2019 with a monthly fee of Rs. 6,41,100/- plus taxes. The commercial relationship between the two is said to have blossomed in terms of the aforesaid agreement.

4. Dispute arose between the two subsequently. The dispute leads to issue of termination of notice by the petitioner to the respondent and lands up in the Commercial Court in Commercial O.S.No.207 of 2024. Before the Commercial Court, the respondent/defendant files an application seeking reference of the matter to arbitration, owing to the fact that the agreement between the two was to be resolved by way of arbitration. The concerned Court, by its order dated 16-10-2024, allows the application filed by the defendant and in terms of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’ for short) refers the matter for arbitration. It this order that has driven the petitioner/plaintiff to this Court in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that there is no explicit arbitrable agreement between the two. Therefore, the Court will have to try it as a commercial suit and not refer the matter for arbitration. It is his contention that unless the parties explicitly agree without any ambiguity the solution for the dispute is only through arbitration, the application filed under Section 8 of the Act r/w Section 16 of the COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT could not have been allowed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondent would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that if a perusal at the clause of agreement is had, it is unequivocally clear that the dispute was resolvable only by way of arbitration. This is what the Court has done. The Commercial original suit in fact was not entertainable, without at the outset parties resolving the dispute by way of arbitration. He would submit that there is no fault in the order and does not warrant any interference with the disposal of the suit.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. What is germane to be considered is, whether the order of the concerned Court answering the application filed by the defendant under Section 8 of the Act is sustainable? The entire fulcrum of the subject lis revolves round the agreement between the parties. The agreement between the parties