(See M.P.State Agro Industries Developrnent Corporation Limited v. Jahan Khanl). It is always discretion of this Court to entertain or not to entertain writ petition, which is in the nature of self imposed restriction. In the present case whether Court is of the opinion that factual matrix is required to be adjudicated by proper forum, as disputed questions of fact, which are to be resolved in the process, after hearing parties, after considering the nature of allegations made, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have to be relegated to alternate remedy by r,vay of arbitration in terms of clause 47 of the tender conditions. 19. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners have reliecl on thej udgments reported in Tulip I.T.Services Limited v. Punjab National Bank reported 1n [2Oo4 l2l ARBLR 447 Delhi] and Managing Director, West Bengal Dairy and Poultry Development Corporation Limited v. Jayanti Bose {LAWS (CAL) 2018 4 3l.l of Calcutta High Court. The Delhi High Court has not dea-lt with the definition of arbitration agreement contained in Section 2(g) rl'.r Section 7 of the Act, as such, I am not in agreement r;r,it the same, with great respect. Similarly, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme in reported in M/s. PSA Mumbai Investments PTE Limited v. The Board of Trustees of the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and another (Civil Appeal No.9352 of 2018) and West Bengal Dairy and Poultry Development Corporation Limited v. Jayanti Bose (supra) har.,e not dealt with similar arbitration clause, as in the present case, AS such, the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand.
