SAT PAL ( 1 ) OMP 138/79 has been filed on behalf of United Engineering (Eastern) Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Firm) against Delhi State Industrial Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the DSIDC) and in this petition it was prayed that the DSIDC and their servants/agents be restrained from enforcing, claiming and/or receiving any amount under the performance guarantee dated 24th May, 1978 issued by the Bank of India, Calcutta, Main Office pertaining to the agreement dated 23rd May, 1978 between the parties. This petition came up for hearing on 24th September, 1979 and on that date respondents were restrained from enforcing and/ or receiving any amount under the performace guarantee dated 24th May, 1978 issued by the Bank of India, Calcutta till further orders. S. No. 999a/83 also has been filed by the Firm against DSIDC and in this suit it has been prayed that DSIDC be directed to file the arbitration agreement dated 23rd May, 1978 and the disputes mentioned in paragraph 25 of the plaint be referred to the arbitrator for adjudication in terms of the arbitration clause contained in the said agreement. Since both the cases pertain to the agreement dated 23rd May, 1978 between the firm and the DSIDC, both the cases are being disposed of by this common judgement. ( 2 ) NOTICE in OMP 138/79 and in S. No. 999a/83 were issued to the D. S. I. D. C. and reply has been filed on behalf of the DSIDC in both the cases. Both the cases came up for hearing on 18th May, 1993, but none was present on behalf of the DSIDC. The cases were, however, adjourned for arguments for 26th October, 1993. Again on 26th October, 1993 non appeared on behalf of the DSIDC. However, arguments were heard on that day. ( 3 ) MS. RACHNA Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Firm drew my attention to the agreement dated. 23rd May, 1978 entered into between the parties which contains arbitration clause No. 37. She, therefore, submitted that the disputes mentioned in para 25 of the plaint be referred to arbitration in terms" of the aforesaid arbitration clause. ( 4 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-firm and have perused the record. She, therefore, submitted that the disputes mentioned in para 25 of the plaint be referred to arbitration in terms" of the aforesaid arbitration clause. ( 4 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner-firm and have perused the record. From the agreement dated 23rd May, 1978, I find that in terms of clause 37 of the said. agreement, all. disputes arising out or relating to the contract shall be referred to the sole arbitration of any person nominated by the Chairman/managing Director of the DSIDC. Having regard to facts of ,the case, I direct the Chairman/managing Director of the DSIDC t6 refer the disputes mentioned in para 25 of the plaint in S. No. 999a/83 to the sole arbitration in terms of clause 37 of the agreement within two months from the date of the receipt of this order. The interim order restraining the DSIDC from enforcing and/or receiving any amount under the performance guarantee dated 25. 5. 78 issued by the Bank of India, Calcutta, main office passed on 24. 9. 79 is confirmed subject to the order making the award in this case rule of the Court. This is, however, subject to the condition that the firm shall keep the bank guarantee alive till then. With this order both S. No. 999a/83 as well as OMP No. 138/79 stand disposed of. Parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.