Vikramajit Sen, J.

( 1 ) THE Plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 10,33,875. 02 against the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Calcutta and the Controller of Stores, Calcutta, being the Defendants herein. The Plaintiff had submitted its Tender dated 26. 12. 1992, The dispute that has arisen between the parlies pertains to whether the Plaintiffs offer was inclusive of Excise Duty. On notice being issued to Defendants, an application purporting to be under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 has been filed by them. In substance the application states that, although this Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit since the cause of action had arisen in Calcutta, where the Defendants have their Office, the Agreement between the parlies contained an Arbitration Clause. This Clause 2900 has been reproduced in the application itself.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the Plaintiff has strenuously resisted the application. It is his contention that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is not applicable between the partics since the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter called the 1996 Act ) is the statute that would govern the possible

Click Here to Read the rest of this document