Prathiba M. Singh, J.

1. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.1,42,17,569/-against the Defendants. Defendant No.2 is the Managing Director of Defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is deleted from the array of parties. Defendant No.1 had floated a tender in response to which the Plaintiff had submitted its bid. Vide letter of intent dated 7th July, 2009, the Plaintiff was awarded the project for Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of Aluminum Structural Glazing (Semi Unitized) and ACP Work for the Defendant’s Project: Eros Corporate Park, Block No. K, Sector-2, Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana. The case of the Plaintiff is that several disputes arose in respect of the said work order, which was issued for a sum of Rs.3,48,65,621/-. The work order was issued after a delay of five months. The Plaintiff submitted the gross final bill for Rs. 5,20,70,080/, against which, it claimed to have received only Rs.4,29,52,667/-. Despite repeated requests and reminders, the outstanding amount was not paid and hence Plaintiff filed the present suit claiming the principal sum of Rs.88,85,981/-. The suit amount of Rs.1,42,17,569/-includes the interest component of Rs.53,31,588/-on the principal amount.

2. The Defendants have filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The case of the Defendants is that the work order as also the general terms and conditions contains an arbitration clause, and hence the disputes are liable to be referred to arbitration.

3. The counsel for the Defendants relies upon clause 19 of the work order and clause 2.38 of the general terms and conditions:

“Work Order for Supply, Installation, Testing and Commissioning of Aluminium Structural Glazing (Semi Unitized) & ACP Work for our Project: Eros Corporate Park, Block No. K, Sector-2 Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana

…

19. Arbitration: In case of any dispute or disagreement between you and our Project team, Managing Director, Mr. Ajay Sood of EROS group will be the sole Arbitrator and his decision will be final binding on you.

“General Conditions of Contract

2.38. DISPUTE

Any dispute arising out of this contract shall be referred to Mr. Ajay Sood, Managing Director, Eros group of companies, whose decision shall be final, binding and conclusive.”

4. The counsel for the Plaintiff however submits that the above two clauses cannot be construed as arbitration clauses as they do not expressly record that the parties would submit and refer all their disputes to arbitration. Counsel for the Plaintiff specifically relies upon:

Discovery Properties & Hotels Pvt. Ltd. v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. (CIDCO) 2010 (4) Arb. LR 150 (Bombay) and

Bharat Bhushan Bansal v. U.P. Small Industries Corporation Ltd., Kanpur AIR 1999 SC 899.

5. In Discovery Properties (supra), the two clauses which were called for interpretation are as under:

“41. Interpretation of general terms and conditions for disposal of plots of land – In case of dispute as regards interpretation of the general terms and conditions of disposal of plots of land and of the invitation of offer or anything therefrom, the final decision rests with Managing Director of CIDCO and will be binding on all parties as the award of arbitrator.

44. Interpretation of general terms and conditions for disposal of plots of land – In case of dispute as regards interpretation of the general terms and conditions of disposal of plots of land and of the invitation of offer or anything therefrom, the final decision rests with Managing Director of CIDCO and will be binding on all parties as the award of arbitrator.”

In the context of these two clauses, the Bombay High Court held as under:

“The Supreme Court held that the mere use of the word "arbitration" or "arbitrator" in a clause will not make it an arbitration agreement. In the present case, a reading of both Clause 44 of the Letter of Allotment and Clause 41 of the bid document shows that par