( 1 ) ARBITRARIBILITY or otherwise of the suit subject, in the face of arbitration clause, forming part of an agreement between the parties, is a short question posed for consideration in the present context. An answer in affirmative forecloses trial to. pave way for adjudication on the matter in controversy. by an arbitrator.

( 2 ) FAOTUAL content emanating from plaintiff s pleadings takes one way back to July ,1957 when the plaintiff, responding to an offer from Central Public works Department (defendant No. 2) of ;union of india (defendant No. 1), to create a bronze mural for display at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi set out to accomplish the challenging task. After extensive preparation and research, plaintiff s untiring and stressful concentrated hardwork, spanning over a period of five years, dedicated to the cause, eventually produced an acclaimed piece of artistic work manifesting itself in the form of a 140 feet long and 40 feet high mural, demonstrating a delicate balance between cultural and material aspects in national perspective essence of rural and modern india being its theme. The mural so created found its rightful place in Vigyan Bhawan lobby right at its entrance, in the year 1962 and in due course of time acquired the reputation of being one of the important historical murals representing essential part of india s best art heritage.

( 3 ) MURAL continued to occupy its place until it was pulled down and dumped by the defendants in the year 1979 in the course of partial reconstruction of Vigyan bhawan, without permission, consent or authorisation of the plaintiff. In the process, owing to mishandling, mural lost its aesthetic and market value. Its bits and pieces, including two full figures, and part of the plaintiff s name disappeared altogether.

( 4 ) AGAINST the aforesaid treatment meted out to hi artistic work, the plaintiff lodged his complaints with all concerned and pleaded for undoing the wrong, but, without any success. His grievance remained unredressed and even a legal notice served on the defendants did not yield any result.

( 5 ) ALLEGED acts of commission and omission being attributed to the defendants are pleaded to be in gross violation of plaintiff s moral rights under section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The plaintiff has, in order to vindicate his cause, in the suit filed by him, seeks reliefs in the nature of;

" (A) A decree for declaration that the defendant has violated the plaintiff s special rights under section 57 of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the defendant is liable to be directed to tender an apology; (b) A decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from further distorting, mutilating or damaging the plaintiff s mural; (c) A decree for damages of rs. 50,00,000/- to compensate the plaintiff for the loss, injury, insult and humiliation caused by the defendant to the plaintiff s reputation and honour; and (d) A decree for delivery-up directing the plaintiff to return the plaintiff s mural to the plaintiff for restoration at the defendant s cost and/or return of the same to the plaintiff. "

( 6 ) INSTEAD. of filing their written statement, the defendants made an: application under Section 34 of the arbitration Act, 1940 seeking stay of. proceedings in the suit to facilitate reference of disputes to arbitration for adjudication, in view of arbitration agreement, between the parties and for vacation: of ad interim injunction granted on 29th of May, 1992.

( 7 ) THE defendants assertion is that the mural was damaged in a fire in the Vigyan Bhavan. Referring to clause 6 of the Agreement dated 31. 1. 0. 1960, it is stated that the plaintiff had assigned his copyrights to the defendants and having purchased the same, the defendants are under no fetters while dealing with the mural in question. Further more, it is added that if at all the plaintiff is aggrieved, it is open to him to seek redressal of his grievance by way of reference of the disputes to arbitration in t