S. K. PHAUJDAR, J.

( 1 ) THE matter was heard on March 3, 1997. A mortgage suit was filed by the State Bank of India before the Civil Judge, Meerut, which was registered as Suit No. 453 of 1995 for recovery of Rs. 94,00,000 (rupees ninety-four lakhs) odd. The defendants, including the present revisionist, appeared in the suit and an application was moved before the court below under Sections 8 and 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, praying therein that the court may refer the parties to arbitration and may stay further proceedings in the suit. The court below had considered the application, perused the agreement between the plaintiff and Rico Rubbers of which the revisionist is a partner, and rejected the prayer for reference to arbitration holding that the agreement in question was not an arbitration agreement and hence no reference to arbitration could be made.

( 2 ) THE relevant clause on which learned counsel for the revisionist as also learned counsel for the caveator bank drew my attention was Clause 4 in the agreement for cash credit between the State bank of India and Rico Rubbers. This clause may be quoted for the point in dispute as under :

"4. That on any de

Click Here to Read the rest of this document