order submitted that the plaintiff who was a manufacturer of distribution transformers has acquired work order for 809 transformers to be supplied by defendant no.1 to Ethiopia. He further submitted that the warranty was against all manufacturing and material defects and not more than this but herein without any such complaint a communication was sent to plaintiff that 10 no. of 100 K.V. transformers were not accepted by EEPCO, Ethiopia. He further submits that because of this the dispute arose between the parties and defendant no.1 without explaining the reasons of rejection of shipment is trying to invoke the bank guarantee, therefore, the plaintiff appellant was constrained to file civil suit to restrain the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. He further submitted that the agreement dated 04.03.2008 was executed between plaintiff and defendant no.1 but defendant no.2 was not a party to the proceedings, therefore, in a cause of action wherein a third party is also involved, who was not a party to agreement then arbitration clause cannot be invoked against the bank. He also submitted that the trial court misunderstood the provision of Section 8 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, particularly in the case wherein the dispute between the parties was not within scope of Clause 17 of the agreement. At last, he submitted that the trial court has committed serious error while rejecting the suit of the plaintiff.
