Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – ss.8 and 45 – FirstRespondent entered into four agreements in regard to commissionof a Photovoltaic Solar Plant – Two agreements dated 01.02.2012were with M/s. ‘JI’; one agreement dated 05.03.2012 with appellantno.2 and another agreement dated 14.03.2012 with appellant no.3– All the agreements contained arbitration clause except agreementdated 05.03.2012 – Dispute arose between the parties – Firstrespondent alleged that appellant no.3 defaulted in payment of rentand appellant no.2 committed fraud by inducing first respondent topurchase the Photovoltaic products by investing huge amount –Appellants sought for reference to arbitration u/s.8 of all fouragreements as they were inter-connected – Single Judge of HighCourt dismissed the application u/s.8 and held that agreement dated14.03.2012 cannot be treated as mother/principal agreement andother agreements as ancillary agreements and further that sincethere was criminal complaint against the appellants, they cannot bereferred to arbitration – Division Bench of High Court held thatmain agreement dated 05.03.2012 did not contain an arbitrationclause, thus the matter cannot be referred to arbitration – On appeal,held: All the four agreements were inter-connected – It was a casewhere several parties were involved in a commercial project executedthrough several agreements/contracts – In such a case, all partiescan be covered by the arbitration clause in the main agreementdated 14.03.2012 – Insofar as allegations of fraud are concerned,it is only where serious questions of fraud are involved, thearbitration can be refused – In instant case, the allegations cannotbe said to be so serious to refuse to refer the parties to arbitration– Arbitrator appointed can examine the allegations regarding fraud– All the four agreements and the parties thereon referred toarbitration.