purchase order, and did not bind the buyer to such a clause. NSK Sales23 was also similar, as the invoice containing the arbitration clause was preceded by a purchase order which did not contain an arbitration clause. 14. Upon consideration of the aforesaid authorities, I am of the view that the present case is indistinguishable from the three judgments involving this very petitioner, which have been relied upon by Mr. Jain. The petition is, therefore, liable to succeed, however, with the qualification that this discussion is only intended to meet the requirements of prima facie satisfaction as to the existence of an arbitration clause. In accordance with the judgments of the Supreme Court in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation24 and BSNL v. Nortel Networks (India) (P) Ltd.,25 and NTPC Ltd. v. SPML Infra Ltd.,26 this Court is conscious of the fact that, at the pre-reference stage, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited. Reference is to be declined only if the Court is ex facie satisfied that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties. Otherwise, the default course of action is that, even in doubtful cases, the matter be referred to arbitration, leaving open the question of existence of the arbitration clause for final adjudication by the arbitral tribunal. That is the course I propose to adopt in this case also. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is disposed of by referring the disputes between the parties to arbitration under the aegis of Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, Shershah Road, New Delhi [“DIAC”]. DIAC is requested to nominate an Arbitrator from its
