JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. These appeals are directed against order dated 8.4.2013 passed by the Trial Court, whereby, the application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the Act’) has been rejected while accepting the application filed by respondents under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. 2. The appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Act seeking injunction against the respondents for maintaining status regarding Jodhpur-Osian-Phalodi State Highway, not to act against the contract, refrain from acting arbitrarily, from invoking bank guarantee, from disturbing the plant and machinery at the site and not to take further proceedings pertaining to E-tender No. 583/2012-13 and 580/2012-13. 3. The respondents appeared and filed application under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C., inter alia, on the ground that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties and for maintainability of application under Section 9 of the Act existence of arbitration agreement is sine qua non and for that reason the application was liable to be rejected. 4. The appellant resisted the application and claimed that Clause-24 of the agreement is arbitration agreement and, therefore, the application is maintainable. 5. By the impugned order the Trial Court came to the conclusion that besides the fact that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties, there is a specific stipulation in the agreement that there shall be no arbitration for settlement of any dispute between the parties and, in that view of the matter, the application filed by the respondents under Order 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. was accepted and the application filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Act was rejected. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated the submissions as made before the Trial Court as well as raised, in the memo of appeal. 7. Learned Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the patties and have perused the material available on record inclusive of Clauses 24 and 25 of the agreement. 9. Clause 24 of the agreement provides for raising the dispute before the competent authority/filing of appeal before standing empowered committee and they have been entrusted with the task of settling the dispute between the parties. 9. Clause 24 of the agreement provides for raising the dispute before the competent authority/filing of appeal before standing empowered committee and they have been entrusted with the task of settling the dispute between the parties. Clause 25 of the agreement provides as under:- “In view of the provision of the clause 24 on Dispute Redressal System it is the condition of the Contract that there will be no arbitration for the settlement of any dispute between the parties." 10. A bare reading of Clause 24 of the agreement between the parties indicates that the same only provides for grievance redressal system along with appellate authority of the respondent and the said Clause by itself cannot be termed as an arbitration agreement between the parties. 11. Besides the above, Clause 25.1 (supra) clearly spells that there will be no arbitration for the settlement of any dispute between the parties. The said Clause categorically provides for not referring the dispute to arbitration. 12. In view thereof, it is apparent that there does not exist any arbitration agreement between the parties and application under Section 9 of the Act, for which, existence of arbitration agreement is sine qua non was not maintainable and the Trial Court did not commit any error in rejecting the application filed by the appellant. 13. In view thereof, no interference is called for in the order impugned. The appeals filed by the appellant are dismissed. However, the appellant is left free to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. No order as to costs.