ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Applicant has invoked the provisions of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an independent Arbitrator in terms of Clause 8 of the Article of Agreement entered into with the Respondent Bank, Annexure-2 dated 12.3.2015. Under the agreement applicant was required to execute construction of RSETI building at Chas, Bokaro. Clause 8 of the agreement reads as under:- “Clause 8:- Any dispute arising under this agreement shall be dealt under arbitration clause of General Conditions of Contract”. 3. It is not in dispute between the parties that the relevant provisions are contained in clause 24 and 25 of the General Conditions of Contract, which are part of Article of Agreement. Clause 24 and 25 are also quoted hereunder:- “Clause 24:- All works to be executed under the contract shall be executed under the direction and subject to the approval in all respects of the Zonal Manager of the Bank of India, BOKARO Zone for the time being, who shall be entitled to direct at what point or points and in what manner they are commenced and from time to time carried out”. “Clause 25(1):-Except where otherwise specified in the contract and subject to the power delegated to him by Bank under the code rules then in force, the decision of the Zonal Manager, Bank of India, BOKARO Zone for the time being shall be final, conclusive and binding on all parties to the contract upon all questions relating to the meaning of the specifications, designs, drawings and instructions herein before mentioned and as to the quality of the workmanship or material used on the work or as to any other question, claim, right, matter or things whatsoever, in any way arising out of or relating to the contract designs, drawing, specifications, estimates, instructions, order of these conditions or otherwise concerning the works or the execution or failure to execute the same whether arising during the progress of the work or after the completion or abandonment thereof”. 4. Applicant had raised their dispute in relation to the outstanding amount towards execution of work. Learned counsel for the Applicant has also placed correspondences at Annexure-3 and 4 on the subject between the parties. 4. Applicant had raised their dispute in relation to the outstanding amount towards execution of work. Learned counsel for the Applicant has also placed correspondences at Annexure-3 and 4 on the subject between the parties. However, on failure to evoke response of the Respondent Bank of India, applicant served notice dated 17.11.2016 (Annexure-7) raising their claim to the tune Rs.14,46,078.84 plus interest @ 21% per annum. On failure to pay the aforesaid amount, they also requested the Respondents for resolution of the dispute through conciliation. Thereafter applicant has served a notice vide letter dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure-8) by invoking Arbitration Clause 8 of the Article of Agreement for appointment of an Arbitrator within a period of 30 days, failing which, they would have to proceed under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996. 5. Respondents have filed their response contesting the claim. According to them the arbitration application is without jurisdiction and not maintainable in the eye of law. Respondent Bank of India has paid the total contract sum of Rs.87,36,901.25 only along with service tax on the actual amount and deducted the T.D.S as per provisions of law, as furnished through a summary chart at para 9 of their counter affidavit. Respondents have opposed the prayer for appointment of Arbitrator under the relevant provisions relied upon by the petitioner. 6. I have considered the submission of the parties and gone through the relevant material on record including the clauses quoted hereinabove. The prayer of the applicant for appointment of an Arbitrator by invoking Clause 24 and 25 of the General Conditions of the Contract read with Clause 8 of the Article of Agreement, however appears to be misconceived. One may straightway refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vishnu (DEAD) By LRS. Vs. State of Maharashtra & others reported in (2014) 1 SCC 516 where the very issue whether Clause 29 and 30 of the agreement therein contained the arbitration clause or not was also involved. Clause 29 and 30 of the agreement in question therein have been quoted at para 11 of the report and are reproduced here under as well:- Para 11. We have considered the respective arguments. Clauses 29 and 30 of the B-1 Agreements entered into between the parties read as under: “29. Clause 29 and 30 of the agreement in question therein have been quoted at para 11 of the report and are reproduced here under as well:- Para 11. We have considered the respective arguments. Clauses 29 and 30 of the B-1 Agreements entered into between the parties read as under: “29. All works to be executed under the contract shall be executed under the direction and subject to the approval in all respects of the Superintending Engineer of the Circle for the time being, who shall be entitled to direct at what point or points and in what manner they are to be commenced, and from time to time carried on. 30. Except where otherwise specified in the contract and subject to the powers delegated to him by the Government under the Code Rules then in force the decision of the Superintending Engineer of the Circle for the time being shall be final, conclusive, and binding on all parties to the contract upon all questions, relating to the meaning of these specifications, designs, drawing, and instructions hereinbefore mentioned and as to the quality of workmanship, or materials used on the work, or as to any other question, claim, right, matter, or thing whatsoever, if any way arising, out of, or relating to the contract designs, drawings, specifications, estimates, instructions, orders, or these conditions or otherwise concerning the works, or the execution, or failure to execute the same, whether arising, during the progress of the work, or after the completion or abandonment thereof”. 7. A bare comparison of the Clause 24 and 25 of the General Conditions of Contract in the instant case with Clause 29 and 30 in the case of Vishnu (supra) would unambiguously show that they are in almost exact language except that in the place of Superintending Engineer of the Circle, it is the Zonal Manager of Bank of India, who is named official. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has dealt with the precedence on the subject and has come to a conclusive opinion that Clause 30 of the B-1 agreement is not an arbitration clause. What constitute the essential attributes of the arbitration agreement has been culled out from the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of K.K. Modi Vs. K.N. Modi reported in (1998) 3 SCC 573 and quoted at para 19 of the report. What constitute the essential attributes of the arbitration agreement has been culled out from the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of K.K. Modi Vs. K.N. Modi reported in (1998) 3 SCC 573 and quoted at para 19 of the report. They are illuminative of the essential attributes which the arbitration agreement is required to possess and are accordingly also extracted hereunder:- 19. One of the questions formulated by this Court was whether Clause 9 of the memorandum of understanding constituted an arbitration agreement and whether the decision of the Chairman, IFCI constituted an award. The two-Judge Bench first culled out the following attributes of an arbitration agreement: (K.K. Modi case, SCC p. 584, paras 17-18) “17. (1) The arbitration agreement must contemplate that the decision of the tribunal will be binding on the parties to the agreement, (2) 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, (3) the agreement must contemplate that substantive rights of parties will be determined by the agreed tribunal, (4) 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, (5) 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, (6) 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. 18. The other factors which are relevant include, whether the agreement contemplates that the tribunal will receive evidence from both sides and hear their contentions or at least give the parties an opportunity to put them forward; whether the wording of the agreement is consistent or inconsistent with the view that the process was intended to be an arbitration, and whether the agreement requires the tribunal to decide the dispute according to law.” 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State & others Vs. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State & others Vs. Dina Nath reported in (2007) 5 SCC 28 , which have also been referred to in the case of Vishnu(supra) and distinguished by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by the Bench of 3 Judges. However, in the present case there is no iota of doubt that the provisions of Clause 24 and 25 are not in the nature of arbitration clause. Mere reference to Clause 8 of the Article of Agreement would not clothe the instant clauses 24 and 25 in the nature of arbitration clause to be invoked for appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of the dispute in question. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that instant application should fail. 9. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed.