1. Mr. Madan has strongly objected for entertaining motion on the ground that it is not lodged and that a copy thereof has been served at 11.23 a.m. He however submits that he is willing to go ahead with the preliminary objection of the defendant on the basis of denial of the averment made in the application.

2. Though I find some substance in the submissions made by Mr. Madan, I am inclined to entertain the notice of motion as taken out by defendants in the interest of justice.

3. The Notice of motion has been taken out by the defendant raising an objection that in view of the Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter referred to as the “Said Act”) the present dispute between the parties needs to be referred to the arbitration as provided in Clause 24 of the Contract between the parties.

4. Heard Mr. Pratap, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants in support of the objection. Mr. Pratap submitted that Section 45 of the said Act provides that when the Court is seized of an action in a matter in respect of which the parties have made an agreement referred to in Section 44, shall, at the request of one of the parties or any person