( 1 ) THIS order shall dispose of IAs 5173/94,6338-39/94.

( 2 ) IA 5173/94 is an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code filed by the plaintiff seeking an ad- interim injunction. IA 6338/94 is an application under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code filed by the defendants, seeking vacating of the ex-parte injunction order dated 30. 5. 94 also adopted by the defendant as reply to IA 5173/94. . IA 6339/94 is an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 filed by the defendants seeking stay of the suit on the ground of there being an arbitration agreement between the parties.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 26,21,322. 00. Vide para 16 of the plaint, the parties are admittedy members of the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Limited. According to the plaintiffs they had entered into a contract with the defendants whereunder the transactions entered into by the plaintiffs on the floor of the Stock Exchange were directly entered in the books of the defendants and the plaintiffs were to pay certain brokerage to the defendants. The defendants dishonestly withheld certain payments which were due to the plaintiffs. There was an open and running account between the parties. As per the account, the suit amount is due by the defendants to the plaintiff. The defendants issued cheques to the plaintiffs which were dishonoured. Hence the suit.

( 4 ) ACCORDING to the defendants, the parties being members of the Association, are governed by the Memorandum, articles of Association and Bye-Laws of the Association which contain an arbitration clause, according to which the disputes raised by the plaintiffs are liable to be REFERRED TO for adjudication by arbitration. The defendants have submitted that the disputes/differences raised by the plaintiffs being liable to be REFERRED TO to arbitration, the suit deserves to be stayed.

( 5 ) IN Food Corporation of India VS. Yadav Engineers and Contractors AIR 1982 SC 1302. their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held :- "when in breach of an arbitration agreement a party to the agreement rushes to the Court, unless a clear case to the contrary is made out the approach of the Court should be to hold parties to their bargain provided necessary conditions for invoking Section 34 are satisfied. "

( 6 ) IN Ramji Dayawala and Sons (P) Ltd. VS. Invest Import. AIR 1981 SC 2085, their Lordships have held :- "when parties by contract agree to arrange for settlement of their 662 disputes by a Judge of their choice, by procedure of arbitration voluntarily agreed upon, ordinarily the Court must hold the parties to their bargain. As a corollary, if a party to a subsisting arbitration agreement in breach or violation of the agreement to refer dispute to arbitration approaches the Court, the Court would not lend its assistance to such a party and by staying the suit compel the party in breach to abide by its contract. "

( 7 ) FACED with the legal position, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has raised several objections to the entertainability of the defendants prayer. Firstly, it is submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is based on dishonoured cheques and hence the arbitration clause which might have been attracted to the original agreement/understanding between the parties may not apply. I am not impressed. The arbitration clause is not contained in any contract between the parties. It is contained in Articles of Association and the Bye-Laws governing the association of which the parties are members. Reliance by the plaintiffs counsel on M/s. Vasanji Navji and Co. VS. M/s. K. P. C. Spinners and Ors. , AIR 1983 Mad 31 is therefore misconcieved. The position has been clarified by a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Gausia Javed and Anr. VS. Jagdish Pershad Associates, AIR 1992 AP 12 wherein the Madras view has been considered. It has been held that only when there is a new contract between the parties amounting to