JUDGMENT M.S. Ramesh, J. Aggrieved against the order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee in I.A.No.86 of 2018 in O.S.No.262 of 2017 dated 01.08.2018, the present Revision has been preferred. 2. Heard Mr.Prakash Goklaney, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Ambigapathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 3. The petitioner herein is the defendant in the suit for recovery of money. The petitioner herein had filed an interlocutory application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to as the Act) seeking for reference of the dispute to arbitration on the ground that the cause of action in the suit revolves around an Arbitration Agreement dated 06.02.2013 and in view of the Arbitration Clause 31 envisaged therein, the trial Court is obliged to refer the parties to arbitration. The plaintiff had resisted the said application stating that the claim amount was not based on the agreement dated 06.02.2013 and that it was on the basis of the terms of the one time settlement arrived at between the parties and as such, the arbitration clause is not applicable. The trial Court on consideration of the rival submissions, had held that the suit was not filed either disputing or touching upon the terms of the Agreement dated 06.02.2013 but it was on the basis of the compromise proposal entered into between the parties and upon the cheques stated to have been issued thereafter. As such, the petitioner's application filed under Section 8 of the said Act came to be dismissed on 01.08.2018. The challenge in the present revision is as against the dismissal order dated 01.08.2018. 4. Mr.Prakash Goklaney, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the very basis of the suit was on the Super Stockist Agreement entered into between them and in view of clause 31 of the said Agreement dated 06.02.2013, the dispute requires reference to arbitration. According to the learned counsel, the very plaint speaks of the agreement as the initial cause of action and as such, the finding of the trial Court that the claim was not on the basis of the Agreement dated 06.02.2013 cannot be countenanced. According to the learned counsel, the very plaint speaks of the agreement as the initial cause of action and as such, the finding of the trial Court that the claim was not on the basis of the Agreement dated 06.02.2013 cannot be countenanced. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon three judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1) C.A.Nos.8245 & 8246 of 2016 (A.Ayyasamy V. A.Paramasivam & Others), (2)Appeal (Civil) Case No.326 of 2007 [M/s.Agri Gold Exims Ltd., V. Shri Lakshmi Knits & Wovens & Others] and (3) [Branch Manager, Magna Leasing & Finance Ltd., and another V. Potluri Madhavilata & another, (2009) 10 SCC 103 ]. 5. Mr.S.Ambigapathi, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand reiterated the justification rendered by the trial Court while dismissing the application filed under Section 8 of the Act and submitted that the entire suit for recovery of money was based on the one time settlement arrived at between the parties and in view of the default on the part of the petitioner herein to honour the one time settlement, the suit has been laid. As such, he urged this Court to dismiss the revision. 6. I have given careful considerations to the submissions made by the respective counsels. 7. The basic facts evidenced from the pleadings are that the plaintiff and the defendant company had entered into Super Stockist Agreements dated 06.02.2013 and 04.04.2013 for distribution of certain products in the city of Chennai for a period of five years. In terms of the aforesaid Agreements, the plaintiff and her husband had paid a total sum of Rs. 20 lakhs to the defendant company, towards caution deposit. Thereafter, the business could not be commenced and in response to the demand of the plaintiff to return the amount paid under the terms of the aforesaid Agreements, the defendant had proposed for a One Time Settlement on 14.09.2013 and on the plaintiff's acceptance, he had issued two cheques towards the amount agreed to be settled under the Memorandum of One Time Settlement. When the aforesaid cheques came to be dishonoured, a legal notice was sent to the defendant seeking for payment of the promised amount, which notice was returned unclaimed by the defendant herein. Hence, the suit. 8. When the aforesaid cheques came to be dishonoured, a legal notice was sent to the defendant seeking for payment of the promised amount, which notice was returned unclaimed by the defendant herein. Hence, the suit. 8. The case of the defendant is that the very claim in the suit touches upon the dispute between the parties arising upon the Super Stockist Agreements dated 06.02.2013 and 04.04.2013 and in view of the existence of an Arbitration Clause therein, the Civil Court is barred from adjudicating the dispute and is mandated to refer the parties to arbitration. Hence, an application under Section 8 of the Act came to be filed. Whereas the case of the plaintiff is that the entire cause of action for the suit rests upon the terms of the Memorandum of One Time Settlement dated 14.09.2013 and the subsequent cheques issued by the defendant and in view of the defendant's inability to either honour the cheques or make the payment, the suit has been laid. As such, the cause of action for the money suit does not accrue from the arbitration agreement. 9. To appreciate as to whether the dispute between the parties touches upon the arbitration agreement or not, it would be useful to refer to the Arbitration Clause 31 in the Super Stockist Agreement dated 06.02.2013, which reads as follows: "31. In case of any dispute arising between the parties touching this Agreement terms during its existence or subsequently in future it should be resolved only by Arbitration as contemplated under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, the venue of such proceedings shall be at Chennai only. This condition is applicable for all the disputes including civil or criminal in any manner including the Negotiable Instrument Disputes which is applicable for both sides of the parties. The Courts of Chennai Only will be having jurisdiction over all the matter in connection to this Agreement." 10. Parallely, it would also be useful to look into the terms of the proposal for compromise as a One Time Settlement dated 14.09.2013 executed by the defendant herein, which is extracted hereunder:- "To M/s.V.1 Agency, Attn Mr.Jagath Kumar, Plot No.13, Vimalapuram 2nd Street, Manali (Near Indian Bank), Chennai-68 94448 00614. COMPROMISE PROPOSAL TO SETTLE THE PENDING AMOUNT OF YOURS AS ONE TIME SETTLEMENT (OTS) Sub:-Compromise Proposal to settle the amount without prejudice of both sides. COMPROMISE PROPOSAL TO SETTLE THE PENDING AMOUNT OF YOURS AS ONE TIME SETTLEMENT (OTS) Sub:-Compromise Proposal to settle the amount without prejudice of both sides. Invitation for settlement for the below mentioned amount. Ref : Our earlier letters exchanged between us based on our contract and your payment made and our advertisement expenses for Brand & Product development, delivery of products. We of our Company offering this compromise OTS proposal as below. Dear Sir, With reference to the above we are prepared to settle the dues without claiming our rights or losses to all our debtors related to all kind of material/packing suppliers, advertisers, civil & mechanical contractors to run our industry and company with peace and to avoid all kind of headaches related to legal and all other kind of proceedings. With fortune a multinational Equity share buying company have decided to buy 20% value of our company shares for the tune of Rs. 30 Crores to clear all our debt including bank and other property secured liability of Rs. 10 Crores and shares buyback liability of Rs. 10 Crores and Rs. 5 Crores for raw material and other suppliers pendings and Rs. 5 Crores to clear all other form of debt including super stockiest, stockist and distributors. We have submitted our liability list to the new coming Equity share buyer for which they have appointed the following company to verify the debt amount with each and every debtor. ... ... NOTE:- OUR AMICABLE COMPROMISE OTS AMOUNT CONFIRMATION IS RS.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) If you feel comfortable with our Amicable OTS proposal kindly confirm the above amount to the following Equity Co-ordinator Company with copy to our GAKL Company within 15 days time. ..." 11. The plaintiff had accepted the proposal for One Time Settlement, in reciprocation of which, the defendant had also issued a cheque dated 06.01.2015 for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs and another cheque dated 06.02.2015 for a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs, aggregating to Rs. 20 lakhs towards refund of the caution deposit made by the plaintiff to the defendant under the terms of the Super Stockist Agreements. 12. 2 lakhs and another cheque dated 06.02.2015 for a sum of Rs. 18 lakhs, aggregating to Rs. 20 lakhs towards refund of the caution deposit made by the plaintiff to the defendant under the terms of the Super Stockist Agreements. 12. Whenever there is an existence of an agreement between the parties to refer the disputes or differences arising out of the agreement to arbitration and when one of the parties approaches the Civil Court ignoring such terms and the other party moves the said Civil Court to refer the parties to arbitration under Section 8 of the Act, it would be obligatory for the said Civil Court to refer the parties to arbitration in terms of such agreement, in view of the peremptory language of Section 8 of the Act. This is the settled proposition of law. Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended under Act (3) of 2016, reads as follows: "8(1)-A judicial authority, before which an action is brought in a matter which is the subject of an arbitration agreement shall, if a party to the arbitration agreement or any person claiming through or under him, so applies not later than the date of submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute, then, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of the Supreme Court or any Court, refer the parties to arbitration unless it finds that prima facie no valid arbitration agreement exists." 13. Section 8 of the Act not only confers powers on the Civil Court but also mandates that the Civil Court should refer the dispute which is the subject matter of the arbitration agreement whenever an action is pending before it. For the purpose of referring the parties to the arbitration under Section 8 of the Act what requires to be looked into therefor, inter-alia, would be as to whether the subject matter of the dispute is covered by the arbitration agreement or not. In other words, while deciding an application under Section 8 of the Act, the Civil Court should determine the issue as to whether the cause of action sought for in the civil suit is also the subject matter of the arbitration agreement or not. 14. With the aforesaid legal principles in mind, we shall now analyse the facts of the case in hand. 15. The suit is for recovery of money. 14. With the aforesaid legal principles in mind, we shall now analyse the facts of the case in hand. 15. The suit is for recovery of money. The plaintiff claims to have deposited a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs under a Super Stockist Agreement and till such time the agreement was in vogue, both the parties were bound under the terms of the said Agreement. What transpired later was that the terms of the agreement could not be acted upon, owing to which, the plaintiff claims to have been demanded refund of the amount paid and in response, the defendant allegedly proposed to repay the amount of Rs. 20 lakhs through post dated cheques, which came to be accepted by the plaintiff. Till such time, the plaintiff had accepted the cheques proposed under the One Time Settlement by the defendant, it can be said that the parties were bound under the terms of the Super Stockist Agreement. Thereafter, what the plaintiff was concerned about was the realisation of the cheque amounts which were advanced by him to the defendant. When the cheques came to be dishonoured, he laid a demand for re-payment of the cheque amounts to him through a notice, which was refused by the defendant as unclaimed. After the proposal of One Time Settlement was accepted by the plaintiff, the parties would naturally be bound by the terms of the offer and acceptance of the terms of the contract of the One Time Settlement and not the Super Stockist Agreement. 16. In the light of the above observations, the terms and conditions of the Super Stockist Agreements dated 06.02.2013 and 04.04.2013 were perused. As per the recitals of the said Agreements, the plaintiff was appointed as the defendant's Super Stockist for distributing their products for a period of five years, on condition that she pays a caution deposit. The terms and conditions of the said Agreement relates to the operational system to be followed by the super stockist. The Agreements also stipulate the mode of payments to the super stockist, the trade commissions, area of operations and all further terms touching upon the products' stocks to be received by the plaintiff and released to the retailers. The terms and conditions of the said Agreement relates to the operational system to be followed by the super stockist. The Agreements also stipulate the mode of payments to the super stockist, the trade commissions, area of operations and all further terms touching upon the products' stocks to be received by the plaintiff and released to the retailers. Clause 31 of the said Agreements, stipulates that whenever any dispute arises between the parties touching upon the terms of the Super Stockist Agreement , the same could be resolved only by arbitration. In other words, whenever the dispute arises with regard to the handling of the stocks and the connected payments, period of the agreement, replacement of expired/damaged goods, reimbursement of taxes, supply of goods etc., the dispute between the Super Stockist and the Company could only be resolved by referring the parties to arbitration. 17. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the suit claim is based on his role as a super stockist or is arising out of his performance as a super stockist under the terms of the Agreement. Rather, it is the specific case that the terms of the Super Stockist was rescinded after she had accepted the proposal for the One Time Settlement for repayment of the caution deposit from the defendant and his grievance was the non payment of the amount determined under the One Time Settlement by the defendant. Thus, it is manifestly seen that the suit claim is not based on the terms of the Super Stockist Agreements at all. Hence, the claim of the defendant that the cause of action of the suit is based on the terms of the Super Stockist Agreement is not only flawed but also deceptive. 18. In the light of the above observations and findings, I shall now analyse the relevancy of judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Civil Appeal Nos.8245 & 8246/2016 [A.Ayyasamy Vs. A.Paramasivam & others] dated 04.10.2016, the Hon'ble Apex Court had dealt with a case wherein, the agreement holder was indulging in short supply and tampering of seals in certain petroleum products which resulted in suspending and stopping the supply of the petroleum products in terms of the agreement between the parties. A.Paramasivam & others] dated 04.10.2016, the Hon'ble Apex Court had dealt with a case wherein, the agreement holder was indulging in short supply and tampering of seals in certain petroleum products which resulted in suspending and stopping the supply of the petroleum products in terms of the agreement between the parties. Such misconducts was contrary to the dealership agreements and as such, invocation of the arbitration agreement came up for consideration and it is in this background that the Hon'ble Apex Court had held that the dispute requires to be settled through arbitration. 19. The proposition laid down in the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has no nexus with the facts of the present case. When the cause of action in the instant case does not arise out of the super stockist agreements, the arbitration clause contained therein has no relevance. As such, this judgment relied upon by the petitioner may not help him to substantiate his case. 20. In the judgment in Appeal No.326 of 2007 [M/s.Agri Gold Exims Ltd., V. M/s.Sri Lakshmi Knits & Wovens & Others] dated 23.01.2007 as well as the judgment in Branch Manager, Magma Leasing and Finance Ltd., & Another Vs. Potluri Madhavilata & another reported in, (2009) 10 SCC 103 , the Hon'ble Apex Court had reiterated the proposition that when an arbitration agreement exists, the Courts are mandated to refer the dispute between the parties to arbitration. 21. There is no dispute with regard to the aforesaid proposition. What requires to be established in order to rely upon the aforesaid two judgments is that there was in existence an arbitration agreement and that the cause of action brought in the suit is the subject matter of the arbitration agreement. When the present cause of action for the money suit does not arise from the terms of the arbitration agreement, it goes without saying that there is no arbitral issue before the Civil Court and that the money suit has been laid on the default allegedly committed by the defendant in honouring the terms of the Memorandum of One Time Settlement. Hence, these judgments would also not help the defendant in any way. 22. Hence, these judgments would also not help the defendant in any way. 22. In the result, the findings can be summed up to the effect that the money suit by the respondent herein was not based on the Super Stockist Agreements and that it was laid based on the cause of action that arose in the alleged dishonour of the cheques issued pursuant to the terms of the One Time Settlement arrived between the parties. In fine, the present suit can only be termed as a simple money suit for recovery of the money due on the cheques issued pursuant to the recitals in the One Time Settlement arrived between the parties. 23. The trial Court while relying on all the three citations, had also come to the conclusion that the dispute between the parties do not arise out of the Super Stockist Agreements and as such, the parties need not be referred to arbitration. In view of my aforesaid findings, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the trial Court and as such, there is absolutely no merits in the Civil Revision Petition. Hence, the same stands dismissed. 24. Before parting with the case, I deem it proper to mention here that the observations with regard to the terms of the Super Stockist Agreements or Memorandum of One Time Settlement or the alleged payments made by the party and referred my order, is only for the purpose of answering the grounds raised by the petitioner in the present Civil Revision Petition and that the trial Court shall not rely or deem these factual aspects as a precedent during the course of the final disposal of the suit. 25. In fine, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.