The validity and applicability of an arbitration clause in a supplementary agreement, and the scope of disputes falling within the arbitration clause.

Hemant Gupta, J.

1. The plaintiff, is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed by the learned trial Court on 15.4.2006, whereby an application filed by the defendants, Under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was allowed and the suit was disposed of by referring the matter to the Arbitrator and directing the parties to appear before him.

2. On 6.7.1989, an industrial, plot No. 48 in Phase IV, Udhyog Vihar, Gurgaon was allotted to the petitioner. In pursuance of the said, allotment, an agreement was executed on 28.7.1989. The said agreement contains Clause 26 about referring the dispute between the parties to the Arbitrator, After the said agreement was executed, a conveyance deed dated 14.7.1995 was executed in respect of plot measuring 1402.50 square metres Clause 13 of the said conveyance deed again contains an arbitration clause that in case of any dispute between the parties, the matter will be referred to the sole arbitration of the nominee of the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Industries Department.

3. On 11.1.2000, the petitioner sought permission of the defendants to grant lease in respect of the part of industrial premises having covered area of 700 square metres for a , time period of 9 years to one Capital Vehicle Sales Pvt. Ltd. The said permission was granted and a supplementary agreement was executed on 27.4.2000. The said agreement contains various clauses i.e. resumption of plot, bifurcation/amalgamation of plots etc. On 8,7.2006, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner in respect of resumption of plot allotted to the petitioner on account of misuse. Subsequently, an order of resumption was passed on 1.3.2006 on account of said misuse by the. lessee. It is the case of the petitioner that the appeal against the said order has recently been filed in terms of Clause 28 of the supplementary agreement. The Civil Suit for declaration challenging the order of resumption was filed earlier in which defendants had moved an application Under Section 8 of the Act. It is said order, which is impugned in the present revision petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that with the execution of the supplementary agreement on 27.4.2000, the agreement originally executed on . 28.7.1989 stands superseded, Since there is no clause of referring the dispute to the Arbitrator in the supplementary agreement therefore, the matter cannot, be referred to the Arbitrator in terms of Clause 26 of the earlier agreement. It is contended that the agreement dated 27.4.2000 though titled as supplementary agreement is, in fact, an independent agreement and, therefore, agreement execution of the said agreement. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon, the judgment Union of India v. Kishori Lal Gupta and Bros., to contend that, the dispute whether the previous agreement stands superseded or , not by a supplementary agreement falls outside, the arbitration clause, if it is superseded, the arbitration clause fills within it. It is also argued that by virtue of agreement dated 27.4.2000, the permission was granted to the petitioner to lease out the premises in dispute. In terms of the said permission, respondent No. 1 was inducted as lessee. It is argued that respondent No. 2 is not a party to such agreement, therefore, the dispute which is primarily on account of the alleged misuse of the premises by respondent No. 2, cannot be referred to an arbitrator. Still further, the teamed trial Court has relied upon the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as "Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Pinkcity Midway Petroleums 2003(6) S.C.C. 563 and Sukanya Holdings (P) , Ltd. v. Jayeph H. pandya Anr. to contend that the said judgments have, been impliedly overruled by the latest judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court reported as State Bank of Patiala v. Patel Engineering 2005(8) S.C.C. 618. Therefore, the order passed