Clear arbitration clause language controls scope, so possession and mesne profits disputes stayed outside arbitration.

An arbitration clause must be read according to its clear and unambiguous wording; where it is limited to interpretation of the agreement, it does not extend to a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The dispute therefore fell outside the clause's scope, so reference to arbitration was properly refused under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Supervisory interference under Article 227 was also unwarranted because the lower court had applied the plain contractual language correctly. The objection under Section 8(2) regarding non-filing of the original or certified arbitration agreement was also noted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the arbitration clause covered the dispute relating to recovery of possession and mesne profits, and whether the order refusing reference to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 called for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The clause relied upon was found to be unambiguous and limited to reference of the agreement to the named arbitrator only for interpretation of the agreement. The dispute in the suit was for recovery of possession and mesne profits, which lay outside that limited reference. The Court applied the plain meaning of the contractual language and held that, where the wording is clear, the parties' unexpressed intention cannot override it. It further held that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is narrow and does not extend to reappreciating such a correct interpretation of an unambiguous clause. The Court also noticed the objection under Section 8(2) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 regarding non-filing of the original or certified copy of the arbitration agreement.

Conclusion: The arbitration clause did not cover the suit dispute, and the refusal to refer the matter to arbitration was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitration clause must be construed according to its clear and unambiguous language, and a dispute falling outside the expressed scope of that clause cannot be referred to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

---