Ratio
For the invocation of the provisions of Sec.7 and 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer a dispute for arbitration, the agreement containing the arbitration clause should have been in writing and it should have been signed by both the parties.

Defendant is the revision petitioner in both the revisions.

2. The respondent filed the suit in O.S.No.2745 of 2011 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,73,180/=. The revision petitioner filed I.A.No.15743 of 2011 under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to refer the parties to Arbitration and also filed I.A.No.15744 of 2011 under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act to stop all further proceedings in the suit. Both the applications were dismissed and aggrieved by the same, these revisions are filed.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the respondent filed a suit on the basis of the purchase order made by the revision petitioner and the sale of articles pursuant to the purchase order by the respondent and the purchase order contains an arbitration clause and therefore, the applications were filed to refer the dispute to arbitration and to stop all further proceedings in the suit and that was not properly appreciated by the court below.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the court below, having regard to the express provision of section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, rightly held that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties and the reference to arbitration in the purchase order cannot be construed as an arbitration agreement agreed by the parties and admittedly, the invoices were made even before the purchase order was made and therefore, the goods were delivered not pursuant to the purchase order and the delivery was made even prior to the purchase order and therefore, even assuming that there is an arbitration clause in the purchase order, that cannot bind the parties. He, therefore, submitted that there is no need to refer the matter to arbitration and also relied upon the judgment in NEPC INDIA LTD. v. S.GOPAKUMAR (2009-1-LW 896). He also submitted that even as per the purchase order, the parties agreed to settle the disputes within the courts of Chennai and an option was given to the parties to go for arbitration and in such cases, there is no necessity to refer the matter to arbitration and relied upon the judgment in WELLINGTON ASSOCIATES LTD. v. KIRIT MEHTA ((2000) 4 SCC 272).

5. To appreciate the contention of the revision petitioner, we will have to see the pleadings. As stated supra, in the pleadings, it is stated in para 4 that the revision petitioner approached the respondent at Madras and placed the purchase order and pursuant to that, the respondent/plaintiff sold and delivered goods to the defendant/revision petitioner on various dates under various invoices the articles worth Rs.3,31,831.51. It is further stated that the amount payable by the revision petitioner is Rs.2,73,181/= and therefore, for recovery of the said amount, the suit is filed. Therefore, it is admitted in the plaint that pursuant to the purchase order, supplies were made. A copy of the purchase order is filed in the typed set of papers wherein clause 16 says that all disputes and differences arising between the parties pertaining to the purchase order would be adjudicated through the medium of arbitration and in such event, the revision petitioner will appoint the sole arbitrator to resolve such dispute. Therefore, it is seen from the purchase order that there is an arbitration clause for referring the dispute to arbitration. It is seen from the typed set of papers that in the invoices, the purchase order is also mentioned. Though the purchase order is dated subsequent to the delivery of articles as per the invoices, having regard to the admission made by the plaintiff/respondent, it has to be held that the supply was made pursuant to the purchase order. Nevertheless, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the purchase order cannot be termed as arbitration agreement as per section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

6. S