Judgment :- (1) These three petitions under Sections 8, 10 and 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are filed in the following background: The common petitioner is said to be a licensee under the respondents to display advertisements on Volvo buses belonging to the respondents, for a period of 5 years, in terms of the tender floated in the year 2006. The area of operation was within the range of Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation. The tender of the petitioner having been accepted, an agreement was entered into, in the course of which, disputes having arisen between the petitioner and respondents, the petitioner's license has been unceremoniously terminated. It is the background that the petitioner seeks to invoke Clause 33 of the agreement dated 21-12-2006 and 15-04-2006 and Clause 34 of the dated 12-04-2007 which are in like terms and read as follows: "In case of any disputes or differences arising on the terms and conditions of the tender or contract as the case may be, the decision of the Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation shall be final and pending on both the parties." Therefore the petitioner is before this Court, on the failure of the respondents to refer the matter to arbitration, seeking the appointment of an arbitrator in term of the above clause, should the Managing Director of the respondent - Corporation fail to adjudicate on the dispute. While the petitioner it not averse to the Managing Director of the respondents himself acting as an Arbitrator to adjudicate on the disputes. The Counsel having entered appearance on behalf of the respondents would seek time to file objections and would submit that the clauses which is sought to be involved is not an arbitration clause and the several contracts with the petitioner having been terminated, for good reason the remedy of the petitioner would be to seek damages if any, and the question of adjudicating any dispute does not arise, since the respondents have chosen to engage third parties, in respect of the work that was granted to the petitioner and therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is elsewhere and the present applications are misconceived. (2) The counsel for petitioner would submit that the question whether a Clause of the nature sought to be invoked whether or not is in the nature of an arbitration clause, is no longer res integra, as it is held by the Supreme Court, in the case of Mallikarjun v. Gulbarga University AIR 2004 Supreme Court 716: (2003 AIR Kant HCR 3134), while interpreting a Clause which is of a similar nature as in the present case and while following its earlier judgment in Bihar State Mineral Development Corporation v. Encon Builders (I) (P) Limited 2003 AIR SCW 4186 : ( AIR 2003 SC 3688 ) has laid down the essential elements of an arbitration agreement which are as follows: "(i)There must be a present or a future difference in connection with some contemplated affair; (ii) There must be the intention of the parties to settle such difference by a private tribunal; (iii) The parties must agree in writing to be bound by the decision of such tribunal; and (iv) The parties must be ad idem." Therefore, he would submit that these elements are certainly present in the Clause that is invoked and therefore, there can be no controversy as to whether or not the same is an arbitration clause and hence, would seek reference to arbitration. (3) While the Counsel for the respondent would reluctantly concede that this may be the legal position but that his assertions stand, insofar as the contract having been terminated is concerned. (4) Be that as it may be, notwithstanding the termination of the commercial contract, the arbitration agreement in such a contract would persist and hence, there is no substance in the respondents claim. The petitions are allowed. The matter is referred to arbitration before the Managing Director of the respondent -Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation and he shall adjudicate on the disputes that are sought to be raised by the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Petition allowed.