ORDER :

Prayer: This Civil Revision Petition had been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India to strike off the Plaint in O.S.No. 83 of 2020 on the file of the learned I - Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

1. This Civil Revision Petition had been filed to strike off the Plaint in O.S.No. 83 of 2020 on the file of the learned I - Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

2. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the learned District Munsif Court at Salem does not have territorial Jurisdiction, as the place of business is at Tindivanam Taluk. There is a Partnership deed between the Petitioners herein and the Respondents 1 and 2, who are the Partners in the firm Nachiappan & Co. When ever there is any dispute between the Partners, it shall be referred to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The dispute mentioned in the Plaint is to be referred to the Arbitration, as per the Arbitration Clause between the Partners of the Partnership firm Nachiappan & Co. Therefore, the learned District Munsif Court, Salem ought not to have entertained the Suit in O.S.No. 83 of 2020. On that two grounds this Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to strike off of the Plaint in O.S.No. 83 of 2020.

2.1 The learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners who are the Defendants in the Suit in O.S.No. 83 of 2020 submitted that this Revision Petition has to be allowed in the light of the Arbitration Clause and Plaint in O.S.No. 83 of 2020 has to be rejected, the Suit in O.S.No. 83 of 2020 has to be struck off on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif, Salem.

3. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the following rulings.

3.1. In the case of Kvaerner Cementation India Limited vs. Bajranglal Agarwal and Another, (2012) 5 SCC 214 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under:

“3. There cannot be any dispute that in the absence of any arbitration clause in the agreement, no dispute could be referred for arbitration to an Arbitral Tribunal. But, bearing in mind the very object with which the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been enacted and the provisions thereof contained in Section 16 conferring the power on the Arbitral Tribunal to rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objection with respect to existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, we have no doubt in our mind that the civil court cannot have jurisdiction to go into that question.

4. A bare reading of Section 16 makes it explicitly clear that the Arbitral Tribunal has the power to rule on its own jurisdiction even when any objection with respect to existence or validity of the arbitration agreement is raised, and a conjoint reading of sub-sections (2), (4) and (6) of Section 16 would make it clear that such a decision would be amenable to be assailed within the ambit of Section 34 of the Act.”

3.2. In the case of Bhatia International vs. Bulk Trading S.A. and Another, (2002) 4 SCC 105 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

“29. We see no substance in the submission that there would be unnecessary interference by courts in arbitral proceedings. Section 5 provides that no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided. Section 9 does not permit any or all applications. It only permits applications for interim measures mentioned in clauses (i) and (ii) thereof. Thus there cannot be applications under Section 9 for stay of arbitral proceedings or to challenge the existence or validity of arbitration agreements or the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. All such challenges would have to be made before the arbitral tribunal under the said Act.

30. Mr. Sen had also submitted that the term “arbitral award” includes an interim award. He had submitted that it would be open for the arbitral tribunal to pass interim awards and those interim awards could be enforced in India under Part