IMPORTANT POINTS
The existence of an arbitration agreement as defined under Section 7 of the Act is a condition precedent for exercise of power to appoint an arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal under Section 11 of the Act- It goes without saying that it is not legally permissible for the court to refer the parties to arbitration in the absence of an arbitration agreement or mutual consent-The Rules of the Yogam, including Rule 71, do not satisfy the requirement of Section 2(1)(b) and 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 of the Act and hence the Rule cannot be construed as an `arbitration agreement` within the meaning of Section 7 of the Act.

The important question which arises for consideration in this revision petition is whether Rule 71 of the Rules of the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'), which provides for resolving disputes arising between the members of the Yogam through arbitration, can constitute an 'arbitration agreement' within the meaning of Section 2(1)(b) and 2(1)(h) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and whether the application filed by the respondents under Section 8 of the Act can be held as maintainable?

2. The Yogam is a company registered under the Companies Act. It is a three tier system having the Yogam as the apex body and shakhas or branches at lower level. Rule 71 of the Rules inter alia provides that disputes pertaining to the joint clauses, between the members of the Sakha, or between the members of the Sakha and Sakhas, or between the members of the Sakha and the Unions, or between the members of the Sakha and the Yogam, or between the Sakhas, or between the Sakhas and the Union, or between the Sakhas and the Yogam, or between the Unions, or between the Unions and the Yogam shall be referred to the decision of the Arbitration Council appointed by the Yogam Council or the Board and each party shall have the right to nominate one Arbitrator in the disputes in which the Yogam is a party and that if there arises a difference of opinion among the Arbitrators so appointed, the said difference of opinion shall be referred to a Mediator nominated by the Yogam Council, whose decision shall have to be the final decision.

3. Revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1569/2015 of the Principal Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam. The suit was filed seeking a decree directing the first respondent to conduct the election to the Managing Committee of the first respondent- Sakha of SNDP in accordance with the bye laws and rules under the supervision of an Advocate Commissioner and to hand over administration to the Managing Committee so elected. The petitioners filed the suit in a representative capacity under Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Respondents 1 to 4 are impleaded in a representative capacity. The above respondents filed I.A.No.1212/2016 under Section 8 of the Act seeking to refer the parties to arbitration and the court below by order dated 10th March, 2016, which is impugned in this revision petition, referred the parties for arbitration.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that Rule 2 of the Rules of the SNDP Union mandates that it shall follow the rules of the Yogam whereas Rule 6 of the SNDP Sagha Yogam mandates that SNDP Sagha Yogam shall follow and adhere to the rules laid down by the Yogam. In the light of the aforesaid rules coupled with Rule 71 of the Rules, it is argued that the court below correctly referred for arbitration as the dispute raised in the suit is essentially a dispute between the petitioners, who claimed to be the members of the first respondent SNDP Sakha Yogam and also the third respondent SNDP Union.

5. In the case on hand, admittedly, there is no document signed by the parties to the dispute, referring to or recording an arbitration agreement between the parties. However, Rule 71 of the Rules provided that in the event of any dispute/difference arising between the members, concerning the management and affairs of the Yogam and Union or Sakha, the same shall be referred to arbitration. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners having consented to accept the Rules of the Yogam, are bound to carry out each and every rule contained in it.

6. The provision as to the reference of the dispute to arbitration, is a matter that concerns the jurisdiction of the civil courts. Generally, the civil courts are zealous of their jurisdiction and can only allow it to be curtailed in accordance with law. The provisions of the Indian Arbitration Act con