Short Note : The applicant filed a suit claiming damages of Rs. 14,000 because the non-applicant did not make supply of liquor as per demand. The non-applicant filed the application under section 34 of the Act which was allowed. According to the applicant's Advocate Shri V.S. Pandit, there was no agreement of arbitration and therefore, the suit could not be stayed under section 34 of the Act. On the other hand according to the non-applicant's advocate Shri J.M. Sood, there was no necessity for a regular contract under Article 299 of the Constitution which did not apply in the case of excise contracts where no formal deed of contract is required to be executed on behalf of Government. Held : The conditions of sale were announced and agreed to by the appellant. One of the conditions of she was as under :- ^^xksnke esa laxzg dh deh ds dkj.k ;fn nwljs xksnke ls eky ysus dh O;oLFkk dh xbZ rks ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa Bsdsnkj uqdlku dk gdnkj ugha gksxkA ;fn efnjk o eknd nzO; dh xksnkeksa esa deh ds dkj.k dksbZ nqdku cUn jgsxh rks Bsdsnkj }kjk ekaxs x, eqvkots dk QSlyk vkcdkjh vk;qDr e/;izns’k }kjk fd;k tk,xkA this clause stated that if there was insufficient stock in godowns resulting in closure of the shops, contractor's claim for compensation will be decided by the Excise Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh. The licence granted to the applicant contained clause No. 13 that special pass, rules and other conditions intimated to the applicant before the licence was granted will be binding on him. Thus the condition of sale as quoted above read with clause 13 of the licence clearly envisages an agreement between the parties and there was specific stipulation for a reference to the Excise Commissioner in case of non-supply or insufficient supply of liquor. 2. In Ram Ratan Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 1974 MPLJ 95 it is specifically mentioned that Article 299 of the Constitution of India was inapplicable to cases of excise contracts as the power exercised by the excise authorities is not executive in nature but it is a statutory power and no formal deed of contract is required to be executed on behalf of the Government. In paragraph 10, of this ruling it is stated that the licence is to be signed by the authority empowered to issue licences and there is no provision for countersignatures of the licence. In view of this the absence of signature of the applicant on the licence is of no consequence. 1974 MPLJ 95 relied on. AIR 1955 SC 468 , AIR 1951 All 860 and AIR 1972 P&H 207 distinguished. Revision dismissed.