MANMOHAN SARIN ( 1 ) BY this order, the above batch of nine writ petitions are being disposed of, since the facts are similar and common question of law is involved. CW. No. 4015/97 is being treated as the lead case. ( 2 ) THE petitioner company was engaged in manufacturing and supply of Monoblock concrete Sleepers to the Indian Railways. Petitioners claim to have set up a factory for the manufacture of monoblock concrete sleepers. Petitioners claim to have been making supplies to the respondents/railways based on the bids given and the letter of acceptance, as received. ( 3 ) DURING the course of supplies, the petitioners sought to claim additional amount on account of increase in the cost of HTS wires, cement and wages in accordance with the contract conditions, duly supported with the documents. Respondents are stated to have revised the rates of concrete sleepers after verification of records of the petitioners. The revision in the rates of concrete sleepers was carried out w. e. f. July, 1992 and the petitioners were paid on the revised basis. The petitioners again in 1994 sought similar revision, which was also considered and granted by the respondents. ( 4 ) THE present controversy has arisen out of the respondents contention that petitioners had over charged the respondents for HTS wires. The respondents case being that the petitioners had been charging for HTS wires at higher rates by 14% during 1991 and 10% during 1993. In other words, the excessive amount had been claimed and received by the petitioners. The petitioners came to this court when the respondents out of the current contracts being executed, sought to recover the amounts, which are stated to have been over paid on this account in previous contracts. Interim order against the recovery of the differential amount of the transactions prior to November, 1994 was granted. ( 5 ) COUNTER affidavits have been filed by the respondents in which they took a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on account of their being an arbitration agreement. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the claim of the. respondents for recovery did not have any substance inasmuch as the Committee appointed by the respondents itself reached a conclusion that there was no collusion among the sleeper manufacturers and its suppliers for over charging the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the claim of the. respondents for recovery did not have any substance inasmuch as the Committee appointed by the respondents itself reached a conclusion that there was no collusion among the sleeper manufacturers and its suppliers for over charging the respondents. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that irrespective of collusion or not the factum of over charging is still there. Learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Raman Kapur, submitted that they would invoke arbitration and stake their claims for differential amount. ( 6 ) VIDE order dated 6. 11. 2000 after noting the respective submission of the parties, counsel were asked to obtain instructions regarding the respondents proposal of invoking arbitration and staking claims for the differential amount, which they claim to have been paid in excess to the petitioner before an arbitrator. Learned counsel for the parties have obtained instructions. Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Kapur, states that further they would not recover or withhold the differential amount due to the petitioner in the existing. or future contract till they have obtained an arbitration award in respect of the said amount in their favour. Learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection to this course of action, subject to the petitioners being entitled to raise all legally admissible objections to the respondents claim before the arbitrator including that of limitation. Ordered accordingly. The writ petitions stand disposed of in the above terms.