discussed the agreement as well as the pleadings as set up by the parties and appears to have reached the right conclusion that in view of Clause 6 of the agreement signed by both the parties, the case was referable to the Arbitrator and could not be decided by the Civil Court. As regards the nature of the organization, the matter went to the Delhi High Court and the High Court did not find any such defect as to stamp the acts of the Company as illegal, subject to the penal action. It may further be mentioned that the argument, as raised by learned counsel for the respondents that even in pursuance of the order passed by the trial Court, the award has already been passed. Karamvir Singh, President of the Manav Foundation, has filed an affidavit stating that pursuant to the order, passed by the Civil Court under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, the respondents filed the claim petition whereas the revisionist despite the opportunity did not file any claim petition before the learned Arbitrator and the Arbitrator after adjudication of the claim, passed an award in the matter which has been challenged by the petitioner under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 before Sh.Vijay Kumar Dahiya, Additional District Judge, Rohini Courts, Delhi and the next date of hearing in the said matter is 24.07.2009. He has also attached the copy of the award and the objection petition alongwith his affidavit. As regards, the locus standi to file the application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, it may be observed that it is the Manav Foundation, who is represented by defendants No.2 to 6, therefore, any of the Director of the Company could move the application which would be treated as filed by all the defendants. In the counter affidavit, filed by Balbir Kaur passing of the award has not been denied rather they are alleging that the same being null and void. It may further be observed that the dispute as raised by the plaintiffs in the suit is certainly subject matter of the agreement and could certainly be referred to the Arbitrator. Resultantly, finding no defect in the impugned order, no interference could be called for.
