Arun B. Saharya ( 1 ) THIS order will dispose off two petitions under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940, hereinafter REFERRED TO to as the Act, registered as Suits No. 59-A of 1986 and 60- v of 1986, in respect of Contracts Nos. T/82/100 and T/82/99 in respect of supply of fruits and vegetables respectively by the petitioner to the respondent. ( 2 ) FACTS of both the cases are common except for minor differences which will be mentioned at the relevant place. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is a registered partnership firm. It is carrying on a business of supply of vegetables and fresh fruits to Chefair s Delhi Flight Kitchen being run by respondent No. 1. The petitioner also supplies fresh fruits and vegetables to the other hotels run by the Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited. ( 4 ) ADMITTED facts of the case are that the respondent floated Tenders Nos. T/82/100 for supply of fresh fruits and T/82/99 for supply of vegetables for a period of six months from 1st October, 1982 to 3ist March, 1985. Tenders submitted by the petitioner were the lowest. Tender Committee of the respondent met on 12-8-82 for negotiations with the petitioner regarding price of the goods. They met again on 21st September, 1982. In pursuance of the negotiations, the petitioner commenced supply of goods to the respondent on 1st October 1982. Supplies continued upto the 1st January 1983. Payment at agreed rate was made by the respondent to the petitioner for supplies made upto 31st December 1982. No payment was made for supply made on 1st January 1983. There exists an arbitration agreement between the parties. ( 5 ) DIFFERENCE has arisen between the parties about the period of contract. According to the petitioner, the contract was for a period of six months from 1st October, 1982 to 31st March 1983. On the other hand, the respondent maintains that the contract concluded with the petitioner was only for three months, that is, from 1-10-82 to 31-12-82. ( 6 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, in response to the invitation to tender for supply of six months, tender was submitted for the period of six months. Respondent wanted the petitioner to reduce price of goods, and, also, the period of contract at the time of negotiations on l2th October 1982. The petitioner refused to do so. Negotiations failed that day. Respondent wanted the petitioner to reduce price of goods, and, also, the period of contract at the time of negotiations on l2th October 1982. The petitioner refused to do so. Negotiations failed that day. The respondent called the petitioner again for negotiations on 21st September 1982. That day petitioner agreed to give a discount on price of the goods to the respondent. It did so on representation of the respondent that the contract will be for six months. The Tender Committee of the respondent directed the petitioner to start supply of goods to the respondent immediately. Accordingly, the petitioner commenced daily supply from 1st October 1982 on receipt of written requisition from the Stores Department of the respondent. ( 7 ) AFTER petitioner supplied goods upto the 9th October 1982, it received a letter from the respondent stating that the petitioner has been awarded contract for a period of three months. The petitioner was required to confirm its acceptance of the same by 14th October 1982. By a letter dated 13th October 1982, the petitioner protested against curtailment of the period of contract. It asked the respondent to reconsider their decision with a request to grant the contract for a full period of six months. On 1st November, 1982, the petitioner received written Purchase Order No. 342 dated 30th September, 1982 for fruits and Order No. 369 dated 14th October 1982 for vegetables. The purchase oders specified the period of three months from 1st October 1982 to 31st December 1982 for delivery of the goods. ( 8 ) ON the basis of letter dated 9th October 1982 and the purchase orders, the respondents maintain that the period of contract was only for three months. As against that, the petitioner contends that on the representation of the members of the Tender Committee of the respondent on 21st September 1982 that the contract will be for a period of six months, the petitioner acted to its detriment and agreed to offer discount in the price of the0 goods. Further, he acted upon that representation to his prejudice and commenced supply of goods from 1st October 1982. According to the petitioner, the respondent is estopped from restricting the period of contract to three months, and, that they were bound to maintain the contract for the full period of six months. Further, he acted upon that representation to his prejudice and commenced supply of goods from 1st October 1982. According to the petitioner, the respondent is estopped from restricting the period of contract to three months, and, that they were bound to maintain the contract for the full period of six months. ( 9 ) PETITIONER further contends that communication of the respondent by letter dated 9-10-82 suggesting contract for a period of 3 months, was in the nature of a counter-proposal which was not accepted by the petitioner. and, was actually rejected by its letter dated 30-10-i982. Thus, the basic difference which has arisen between the parties is in respect of period of the contract. ( 10 ) THE arbitration agreement is contained in clause 7 of the Terms and Conditions of Contract accompanying the purchase order dated 30-9-82. It reads as under :- "all disputes arising out of this contract/purchase Order shall be REFERRED TO to the Managing Director of the Hotel Corporation of India Ltd. and it shall be deemed to be submission within the meaning of Indian Arbitration Act 1940 and whose decision shall be final and shall be binding on the supplier. " ( 11 ) ON the basis of its stand that the contract was for six months, the petitioner has raised claims against the respondents in the two suits. ( 12 ) IN Suit No. 59-A of 1986 the claims read as under :- "claim No. 1.-Loss suffered due to the daily supplies made during the period from 1-10-1982 to 31-12-1982 against tender No. T/82/100 : Rs. 15. 000. 00 ( 13 ) THAT due to non-availability of fruits in the market due to Asiad the petitioner had to maintain the supply to the respondents on heavy losses to the tune of Rs. 15,000. 00 (Rs. fifteen thousand ). Claim No. 2-Interest @ 21% on Rs. 1500. 00. 00 : Rs. 9,450. 00 That since the petitioner had suffered loss of Rs. 15. 000. 00 on the supply made upto 31-12-1982 at the instance of the respondents with the hope that the contract was for the period upto 31-3-1983, the loss suffered during the period upto 31-12-1982 would be made good during the supplies of January-March 1983. Thus, the petitioner claims interest @ 21% per annum for the period from 1-1-1983 to 31-12-1985 amounting to Rs. 9,450. Thus, the petitioner claims interest @ 21% per annum for the period from 1-1-1983 to 31-12-1985 amounting to Rs. 9,450. 00 (Rupees nine thousand four hundred and fifty only ). Claim No. 3 :-Loss due to deduction of 90 paise per dozen on Oranges and 50 paise per Kg on Apples. . . Rs. 9,801. 11 ( 14 ) THAT even though the petitioner was the lowest enderer, the petitioner had to agreed to give the aforesaid discount with the hope that since the contract, as per tender conditions, was upto 31st March 1983, the loss would be made good. Thus, on the discount given by the petitioner the petitioner suffered a loss of Rs. 9,801. 11 (Rupees nine thousand eight hundred one and paise eleven only) for the period from 1-10-1982 to 31-12-1982 ). Claim No. 4.-Interest @ 21% on Rs. 9801. 11. . . Rs 6. 174. 00 ( 15 ) THAT the petitioner had suffered loss of Rs. 9,801. 11 (Rupees nine thousand eight hundred one and paise eleven) due to the discount given on the supply of Orange and Apples during the period from 1-10-1982 to 31-12-1982; the petitioner claims interest @ 21% for the period from 1-1-1983 to 31-12-1985 amounting to Rs. 6,174. 00 (Rupees six thousand one hundred seventy four only ). Claim No. 5.-Total loss suffered due to non-supply of fruits as a result of illegal and wrongful termination of Contract No. T/82/100. . . Rs. 30,000. 00 ( 16 ) THAT the respondents illegally and arbitrarily terminated the contract of the petitioner for supply of fresh fruits from 2-1-1983 to 31-3-1983 and awarded the contract for that period to M/s Tej Bhan Ashok Kumar New Sabzimandi, Azadpur, Delhi and, as such, the petitioner suffered a loss of Rs. 30,000. 00 (Rupees thirty thousand only ). Claim No. 6-Interest @ 21% per annum on Rs. 30,000. 00. . . . Rs. 18,900. 00 ( 17 ) THAT the petitioner had suffered a loss of Rs. 30,000. 00due to non-supply of fruits during the period from 2-1-1983 to 31-3-1983 and, as such,the petitioner claims interest on the same from 1-4-1983 to 31-12-1985 @ 21% amounting to Rs. 18,900. 00 (Rupees eighteen thousand nine hundred only ). Claim No. 7-Non-payment of bill for the supplies of fresh fruits made on 1-1-1983 -. . . . Rs. 1,654. 30,000. 00due to non-supply of fruits during the period from 2-1-1983 to 31-3-1983 and, as such,the petitioner claims interest on the same from 1-4-1983 to 31-12-1985 @ 21% amounting to Rs. 18,900. 00 (Rupees eighteen thousand nine hundred only ). Claim No. 7-Non-payment of bill for the supplies of fresh fruits made on 1-1-1983 -. . . . Rs. 1,654. 75 ( 18 ) THAT the petitioner supplied fresh fruits on 1-1-1983 as per requirement of the respondents but bill amounting to Rs. 1,654. 75 has/not been paid to him despite repeated requests. Claim No. 8-Interest @ 21% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,654. 75 Rs. 1,042. 65 ( 19 ) THAT the respondents failed to pay the sum of Rs. 1,654. 75 (Rupees one thousand six hundred fifty four and pase seventy five) towards the supply of fresh fruits on 1-1-1983, the petitioner claims interest @ 21% from * 1-1-1983 to 31-12-1985 amounting to Rs. 1,042. 55 (Rupees one thousand forty two and paise sixty five only ). Claim No. 9-Refund of amount due for the Arbitrary deductions made from the bills from 16-10-1982 to 23-10-82 : 1643. 75 ( 20 ) THAT the respondents have arbitrarily deducted Rs. 1,643. 75 (Rupees one thousand six hundred forty three and paise seventy five) from the bills for the supplies made during the period from 16-10-1982 to 23-10-1982. Claim No. 10-Interest @ 21% per annum on Rs. 1. 643. 75 : Rs. 1,092. 92 ( 21 ) THAT since the respondents have arbitrarily deducted Rs. 1,643. 75 (Rupees one thousand six hundred forty three and paise seventy five) from the bills for the supplies made during the period from 16-10-1982 to 23-10-1985, the petitioner claims interest @ 21% from 24-10-1982 to 31-12-1985 amounting to Rs. 1,092. 92 (Rupees one thousand ninety to and paise nine two only ). Claim No. 11-Interest on delay payment of security/earnest money i. e. Rs. 10,000. 00 @ 21% per annum for the period from 1-4-1983 to 25-4-1984 : Rs. 2,100. 00 ( 22 ) THAT on termination of the contract arbitrarily by the respondents, the petitioner s earnest money was required to be refunded immediately but the same was refunded only on 25-4-1984. The petitioner, as such, claims interest @ 21% for the period from 1-4-1983 to 25-4-1984, amounting to Rs. 2,100. 00 (Rupees two thousand and one hundred only ). The petitioner, as such, claims interest @ 21% for the period from 1-4-1983 to 25-4-1984, amounting to Rs. 2,100. 00 (Rupees two thousand and one hundred only ). Claim No. 12-Arbitration cost : Rs. 10,000. 00 Total amount of claims 1 to 12 : Rs. 1,06,859. 18 Claim No. 13-Future interest @ 21% from the date of award till date of payment," In Suit No. 60-A of 1986 the claims read as under :- Claim No. 1 Loss suffered due to the daily supplies,made during the period from 1-10-1982 to 31-12-1982 against Tender No. T/82/99 : Rs. 1,26,000. 00 ( 23 ) THAT the petitioner maintained the supply during the period from 1-10-1982 to 31-12-1982 when the vegetables were not available in the market due to the "asiad" and also due to the short supply and the prices were sky high, as a result of which the petitioner suffered a loss of Rs. 1,26,000. 00 (Rupees one lakh twenty six thousand only ). Claim No. 2-Loss due to the deductions made @ 8% towards discount on the supplies made from 1-10-1982 to 31-12-1982 under Tender No. T/82/99 : Rs. 30, 821. 48. 24. That petitioner, though was the lowest tenderer, even then he had been pressed to give discount of 8% on the supply of vegetables, which the petitioner had to agree with the hope that during the supply from January to March 1983, the petitioner would make good the loss. As such, the petitioner suffered a loss to the extent of Rs. 30,821. 48 (Rupees thirty thousand eight hundred twenty one and paise forty eight) due to the discount on the supplies made during the period from 1-10-82 to 31-12-1982. Claim No. 3-Interest @ 21% on the amounts of Claim Nos. 1 and 2 from 1-1-1983 to 31-12-1985 : Rs. 98,796. 00 That the petitioner claims interest at Bank rate i. e 21% on Claims No. 1 and 2 for the period from 1-1-1983 to 31-12-1985 amounting to Rs. 98,796. 00 (Rupees ninety eight thousand seven hundred ninety six only ). Claim No. 4-Total loss suffered due to non-supply of vegetables during the period from 2-1-1983 to 31-3-1983 as a result of illegal and wrongful termination of the contract : Rs. 1,54,956. 98,796. 00 (Rupees ninety eight thousand seven hundred ninety six only ). Claim No. 4-Total loss suffered due to non-supply of vegetables during the period from 2-1-1983 to 31-3-1983 as a result of illegal and wrongful termination of the contract : Rs. 1,54,956. 54 ( 25 ) THAT, as mentioned in para 14 of the plaint, the contract for the remaining period was given to M/s. Janata Fruits and Vegetables Shop, 25-25a Khanna Market, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, who made the total supply of Rs. 2,41,230. 26 (Rs. two lakhs forty one thousand two hundred thirty and paise twenty six only) for the period from 2-1-1983 to 31-3-1983, as against which on the basis of price quoted by the petitioner in his tender dated 1-7-1982 and accepted by the Respondents, the value of the vegetables to be supplied would have been Rs. 3,96,187. 80 (rupees three lakhs ninety six thousand one hundred eighty seven and paise eighty ). Thus, the petitioner had suffered the loss to the extent of Rs. 1,54,956. 54 (Rupees one lakh fifty four thousand nine hundred forty six and paise fifty four only ). Claim No. 5-Interest @ 21% on Claim No. 4 from l-4-l983to31. 12. 1985: Rs. 89,487. 09 ( 26 ) THAT the petitioner claims interest at bank rate i. e. 21% on Rs. 1,54,956. 54 for the period from 1. 4. 1983 to 31-12-1985 amounting to Rs. 89,487. 09 (Rupees eighty nine thousand four hundred and eighty seven and paise nine only ). Claim No. 6-Loss of profit on the supplies made by Janata Fruits and Vegetables Shop as a result of wrongful termination of contract for the period from 2-1-83 to 31-3-1983 ; Rs. 60,000. 00 27. That the petitioner bad suffered a total loss of profit of Rs. 60. 000. 00 Rupees sixty thousand only) as a result of award of contract to M/s. Janata Fruits and Vegetables Shop for supply of vegetables for the period from 2-1-1983 to 31-3-1983 as a result of wrongful and illegal termination of the contract. Claim No. 7: Interest @ 21% on Claim No. 6 for the period from 1. 4. 83 to 31. 12. 1985. . . Rs. 34,650. 00 Claim No. 8 : Non-payment of bill for the supply of vegetables on 1. 1. 1983: Rs. 4,230. 00( 28 ) THAT the petitioner was ordered for the supply of vegetables on 1. 1. Claim No. 7: Interest @ 21% on Claim No. 6 for the period from 1. 4. 83 to 31. 12. 1985. . . Rs. 34,650. 00 Claim No. 8 : Non-payment of bill for the supply of vegetables on 1. 1. 1983: Rs. 4,230. 00( 28 ) THAT the petitioner was ordered for the supply of vegetables on 1. 1. 1983, for which the bill amounting to Rs. 4,230. 00 (Rupees four thousand two hundred thirty) has not been paid so far and the respondents had been withholding the said amount illegally. Claim No. 9: Interest @ 21% per annum on the amount of Claim No. 8 for the period from 1. 1. 1983 to 31. 12. 1985. . . . Rs. 2,664. 90 Claim No. 10 : Supply of non-tendered items : Rs. 257. 50 ( 29 ) THAT petitioner was also ordered to supply the non-tendered items and, as such, the petitioner made following supplies for which the payment of Rs. 257. 50 (Rupees two hundred fifty seven and paise fifty) had been withheld by the respondents illegally :- (i) from 1. 11. 82 to 31. 11. 82 : 127. 50 (ii) from 1. 12. 82 to 15. 12. 82 : 75. 00 (iii) from 16. 12. 82 to 31. 12. 82 : 55. 00 Claim No. 11 : Refund of amount due for the arbitrary deductions made from the bills from 16. 10. 82 to 23. 10. 1982 : Rs. 1,643. 75 ( 30 ) THAT the respondents made arbitrary deductions from the bills of the petitioner from 16. 10. 1982 to 23. 10. 1982 amounting to Rs. 1,643. 75 (Rupees one thousand six hundred forty three and paise seventy five only ). Claim No. 12 : Interest 21% per annum on claim No. 1. . . Rs. 1,092. 92 ( 31 ) THAT petitioner claims interest at the bank rate i. e. 21% per annum on Rs. 1,643. 75 arbitrarily deducted from the bills of the petitioner by the respondents from 16. 10. 1982 to 23. 10. 1982, amounting to Rs. 1,092. 92 (rupees one thousand ninety two and paise ninety two only ). Claim No. 13 : Interest on delayed payment of security amount/earnest money i. e. Rs. 10,000. 00 @ 21%. . . Rs. 2,100. 1,643. 75 arbitrarily deducted from the bills of the petitioner by the respondents from 16. 10. 1982 to 23. 10. 1982, amounting to Rs. 1,092. 92 (rupees one thousand ninety two and paise ninety two only ). Claim No. 13 : Interest on delayed payment of security amount/earnest money i. e. Rs. 10,000. 00 @ 21%. . . Rs. 2,100. 00 ( 32 ) THAT the contract of the petitioner was illegally and wrongfully terminated by the respondents but the amount of earnest money i. e. Rs. 10,000. 00 was only paid on 25. 4. 19. S4 and, as such, the petitioner claims interest @ 21% for the period from 1. 4. 1983 to 25. 4. 1984 amounting to Rs. 2100. 00 (rupees two thousand one hundred only ). Claim No. 14 : Loss suffered due to non-supply of vegetables for the period from 2. 1. 1983 to 31. 3. 1983. . . Rs. 20,000. 00 ( 33 ) THAT the petitioner suffered a loss of Rs. 20,000. 00 (rupees twenty thousand only) due to non-supply of vegetables for the period from 2. 1. 1983 to 31. 3. 1983 as a consequence of illegal and wrongful termination of contract No. T/82/99. Claim No 15 : Interest @ 21% per annum on Claim No. 14 for the period from 2. 1. 1983 to 31. 12. 1985 :. . . Rs. 12,600. 00 ( 34 ) THAT as the petitioner suffered a loss of Rs. 20,000. 00 (rupees twenty thousand only) due to non-supply of vegetables for the period from 2. 1. 1983 to 31. 3. 1983 the petitioner claims interest on the said amount from 2. 1. 1983 to 31. 12. 1985 amounting Rs. 12,600. 00 (Rupees twelve thousand and six hundred) at bank rate i. e. 21%. Claim No. 16 : Arbitration cost : Rs. 20,000. 00 ( 35 ) TOTAL of claims 1 to 16 : Rs. 6,59,300. 18 Claim No. 17 : Future interest @ 21% from the date of award till the date of payment. " (Claims 14 and 15 were given up by counsel for petitioner at the time of hearing as they are covered by claim Nos. 6 and 7 respectively ). ( 36 ) IT was conceded by learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing that arbitration agreement applies to all claims except Claims Nos. " (Claims 14 and 15 were given up by counsel for petitioner at the time of hearing as they are covered by claim Nos. 6 and 7 respectively ). ( 36 ) IT was conceded by learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing that arbitration agreement applies to all claims except Claims Nos. 5 and 6 in Suit No. 59-A of 86 and Claims Nos. 6 and 7 in Suit No. 60-A of 86, which do not arise out of the contract or the purchase order, according to him. ( 37 ) AS noticed earlier, the basic difference between the parties is regarding the period of contract. Th e claims in controversy are related to this question. ( 38 ) EVEN for the respondents to contend that the purchase orders stipulated period of three months and that the petitioner is bound by it, the respondent has to take recourse to the contract. So, it cannot be said that the dispute on the claims raisedby the petitioner do not arise out of the contract. ( 39 ) LAW is now well settled that the expression arising out of is very much wider than under the agreement. It is of widest amplitude. (See Renu Sagar Power Ltd. Co. v. General Electric Company and others,1 ( 40 ) IT is found that there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties and that differences have arisen to which the agreement applies. No sufficient cause has been shown why the agreement should not be filed. ( 41 ) THEREFORE, I make an order of reference of disputes between the parties, particularly of Claims mentioned in Suit No. 59-A of 86 and in Suit No. 60-A of 86, except Claims Nos. 14 and 15 in Suit No. 60-A of 86, to the Managing Director of the Hotel Corporation of India, in accordance with the arbitration agreement. ( 42 ) ACCORDINGLY, both the petitions are allowed. No costs