Judgment :- 1. 1. IA No.2 filed by the defendant-petitioner herein under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act’) seeking to refer the parties for arbitration, having been dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2011 passed by the learned XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayohall, Bangalore, the present writ petition is filed. 2. Petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.27279/2009. Plaintiff-respondent herein has filed the said suit seeking a Judgment and decree against the defendant-petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.10,88,10,521.96 along with interest at 15% with effect from 21.12.2008. The suit is based on a contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant as per the letter of intent dated 18.12.2006 whereunder the defendant is stated to have agreed and undertaken to execute and complete certain civil, structural steel and architectural work in accordance with the specifications and drawings prepared and approved by the plaintiff in respect of a project. 3. According to the plaintiff, the defendant agreed to complete the execution of the work to the extent of atleast 80% within 6½ months from the date of issuance of letter of intent and the balance work was extendable to a maximum period of nine months from the date of letter of intent. Failure to complete the work within the stipulated period entailed payment of a sum equal to 1% of contract value per week or part thereof beyond the schedule period of completion subject to a ceiling of 10% contract value towards damages. It was alleged by the plaintiff that despite the plaintiff honouring its payment obligations, defendant failed to perform its responsibilities and although defendant was called upon to submit reconciliation statement and supporting documents for measurement and ascertainment of the final billing, defendant failed to respond. Allegations are made in the plaint stating that defendant had either managed to fabricate final completion certificate or obtain the same through wrongful means and that the defendant had resorted to fabrication of documents to support its bogus claim to the detriment of the plaintiff’s interests. 4. Having entered appearance, defendant filed an application under Section 8 of the Act contending that Clause 12 of the letter of intent dated 18.12.2006 and the letter of acceptance dated 03.01.2007 issued by the defendant contained an arbitration clause, therefore, the Court has to refer the parties to arbitration. 5. 4. Having entered appearance, defendant filed an application under Section 8 of the Act contending that Clause 12 of the letter of intent dated 18.12.2006 and the letter of acceptance dated 03.01.2007 issued by the defendant contained an arbitration clause, therefore, the Court has to refer the parties to arbitration. 5. The application was objected by the plaintiff-respondent herein contending that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties as contemplated by Section 7 of the Act nor was there any intention on the part of the parties to refer their dispute for arbitration and that the relevant clause in the letter of intent merely referred to the venue of arbitration as Bangalore, hence there was no indication that the parties intended to get their dispute resolved by way of arbitration in substitution of judgment of the court. 6. The Court below has dismissed the application holding that the clauses on which the defendant relied upon did not disclose that the parties had an intention to subject their dispute for arbitration by excluding the jurisdiction of the Court. In this regard, the Court below has placed reliance on various judgments. It is this order that is called in question in this writ petition. 7. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent. Both of them have relied upon various judgments. Before considering the effect of the said judgments, it is useful to refer to the two clauses that are found in the letter of intent and the letter of acceptance. 8. Clause 12 of the letter of intent bears the heading ‘Arbitration’. Beneath that, the following expression is found. ‘Venue of arbitration in case of any dispute shall be Bangalore.’ 9. In the letter of acceptance, Clause 5 bears the heading ‘Arbitration’. As against the same, the following expression is found. ‘It shall be applicable as per Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996’. 10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that these two clauses clearly demonstrate that the parties had agreed for the mode of resolution of their dispute as arbitration excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and therefore, the Court below committed an apparent illegality in recording a finding to the contrary. 10. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is, that these two clauses clearly demonstrate that the parties had agreed for the mode of resolution of their dispute as arbitration excluding the jurisdiction of the Civil Court and therefore, the Court below committed an apparent illegality in recording a finding to the contrary. He has placed reliance on the judgments in the case of K.K. MODI VS K.N. MODI & OTHERS- 1998 (3) SCC 573 ; HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. VS M/S. PINKCITY MIDWAY PETROLEUMS- AIR 2003 SC 2881 ; and N. RADHAKRISHNAN VS MAESTRO ENGINEERS & OTHERS- (2010) 1 SCC 72 . 11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of K.K. MODI VS K.N. MODI & OTHERS- 1998 (3) SCC 573 , particularly on paragraphs 17 to 21. He has also placed strong reliance on the judgments in the case of JAGDISH CHANDER VS RAMESH CHANDER & OTHERS- (2007) 5 SCC 719 ; and YL ESERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS SILVERLINE BUSINESS AND TECH PARK PRIVATED LIMITED & ANOTHER- (2008) 1 KCCR 363 . He has further contended that serious allegations of fabrication of documents, cheating and fraud are made against the defendant by the plaintiff-respondent herein and in such circumstance the recourse for arbitration is not permissible. He has also drawn the attention of the court to the additional statement of objections filed to the application filed by the defendant seeking reference of the dispute to arbitration. 12. In the light of the nature of the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties in the letter of intent, the question that arises is. “whether the Court below has committed any apparent illegality in holding that there was no intention expressed by the parties to subject themselves for arbitration and to exclude the jurisdiction of the court to decide the dispute between them?” 13. It is well settled that an agreement to refer the dispute or differences to arbitration must be expressly or impliedly spelt out from the relevant clauses in the contract. It is unnecessary to refer to long line of decisions on this aspect of the matter. It is well settled that an agreement to refer the dispute or differences to arbitration must be expressly or impliedly spelt out from the relevant clauses in the contract. It is unnecessary to refer to long line of decisions on this aspect of the matter. In the case of K.K. MODI VS K.N. MODI & OTHERS- 1998 (3) SCC 573 , the Apex Court has held that among the attributes which must be present for an agreement to be considered as an arbitration agreement, the following are essential. (i) the arbitration agreement must contemplate that the decision of the tribunal will be binding on the parties to the agreement. (ii) that the jurisdiction of the tribunal to decide the rights of parties must derive either from the consent of the parties or from an order of the court or from a statute, the terms of which make it clear that the process is to be an arbitration. (iii) the agreement must contemplate that substantive rights of parties will be determined by the agreed tribunal. (iv) that the tribunal will determine the rights of the parties in an impartial and judicial manner with the tribunal owing an equal obligation of fairness towards both sides. (v) that the agreement of the parties to refer their disputes to the decision of the tribunal must be intended to be enforceable in law and lastly. (vi) the agreement must contemplate that the tribunal will make a decision upon a dispute which is already formulated at the time when a reference is made to the tribunal. 14. In a recent decision in the case of STATE OF ORISSA VS BHAGYADHAR DASHAIR 2011 SCW 5303, the Apex Court after referring to number of decisions has held that if the relevant clause in the agreement does not provide for reference of dispute between the parties to arbitration and does not specify that the decision of the arbitrator would be binding on the parties and that the arbitrator has to act judicially, such a clause is not an arbitration agreement. The Apex Court has made extensive reference to the judgments in the case of K.K. MODI VS K.N. MODI & OTHERS- 1998 (3) SCC 573 and in the case of JAGDISH CHANDER VS RAMESH CHANDER & OTHERS- (2007) 5 SCC 719 and has emphasized the observation made in Jagdish Chander’s case to the effect that if the terms of the agreement clearly indicate an intention on the part of the parties to the agreement to refer their disputes to a private tribunal for adjudication and willingness to be bound by the decision of such tribunal on such disputes, it is arbitration agreement. The principles set down in Jagdish Chander’s case, wherein it has been specifically stated that the words used in the arbitration clause should disclose a determination and application to go to arbitration and not merely contemplate the possibility of going for arbitration and that the parties should have agreed that the decision of the tribunal in respect of the disputes will be binding on them and further that the mere use of words arbitration or arbitrator in the clause will not make it an arbitration agreement are emphasized. 15. In the case of N. RADHAKRISHNAN VS MAESTRO ENGINEERS & OTHERS- (2010) 1 SCC 72 , it is held that despite existence of arbitration agreement and the dispute in question falling within the purview thereof, if the dispute required detailed investigation and production of elaborate evidence, it must be tried by a court. In the said case, as serious allegations of fraud and malpractice in the account books of the partnership firm had been made, the Apex Court held that the matter did not warrant to be tried and decided by the arbitrator and that in the interest of justice, it should be tried in a court of law. Placing reliance on this judgment, Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the absence of any such allegations of fraud or manipulation and in view of the agreement entered into between the parties to refer the matter for arbitration, the court below committed a mistake in rejecting the application filed. He has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of HINDUSTANPETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. He has also placed reliance on the judgment in the case of HINDUSTANPETROLEUM CORPN. LTD. VS M/S. PINKCITY MIDWAY PETROLEUMS- AIR 2003 SC 2881 , to contend that the civil court is required to refer the dispute for arbitration and the question about the applicability of arbitration clause cannot be gone into by the civil court. 16. It has to be stated at the outset, in the facts of the above case, the existence of an arbitral clause in the agreement had been accepted by both the parties and as also by the learned Counsel. In such event, in view of the mandate in Section 8 of the Act, the Apex Court held that the court below ought to have referred the dispute for arbitration. 17. In the instant case, the question raised is with regard to the existence of an agreement to refer the matter for arbitration. The court below has found that there is no such clause which provides the reference of dispute to arbitration. As rightly held by the court below, Clause 12 of the letter of intent only refers to venue of arbitration and states that in case of any dispute, the venue of arbitration shall be Bangalore. Except this, there is no other clause which states that the disputes have to be referred for arbitration and the decision of the arbitrator will be binding, let alone exclusion of the jurisdiction of the courts. The letter of acceptance communicated by the petitioner incorporates a mechanical expression under the head ‘arbitration’ at Clause No.5 stating that it shall be applicable as per Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Therefore, it is very clear that there is no clause incorporated in the agreement nor can it be deducted either from the letter of intent or the letter of acceptance to hold that the parties have agreed to refer their dispute for arbitration and that the decision of the Tribunal will be binding on them. 18. In the light of the long line of authorities of the Apex Court including K.K. Modi’s case and Jagdish Chander’s case and the one recently rendered in the case of STATE OF ORISSA VS BHAGYADHAR DASH-AIR 2011 SCW 5303, the clause in the letter of intent and the letter of acceptance, in the instant case, do not show that there is an arbitration agreement between the parties. Thus, the clauses do not contain the attributes that are required to be present for an agreement to be considered as arbitration agreement. Therefore, the court below was right and justified in passing the impugned order dismissing the application IA No.2 filed under Section 8 of the Act. 19. Though the learned Counsel for the respondent has contended, by referring to the additional objections filed to the application before the court below that the allegations of fabrication of documents by adopting wrongful means to support the bogus claim are made against the petitioner herein and therefore the matter has to be dealt with by the civil court and not by the arbitrator, it is unnecessary to go into this question as I have come to the conclusion that there is no arbitration clause that provides for reference of dispute for arbitration. 20. Hence, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.