.Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: ss.7(3), 7(4), 8 – Billof lading – Suit for recovery by respondent-consignor in Kochicourt – Application filed by appellant, who is agent to facilitatetransport under s.8 of AC Act on the basis of arbitration clause inBill of Lading – In the application, it was pointed out that s.11application was also filed in Chennai court – Kochi court dismisseds.8 application on the ground that the printed conditions annexedto the Bill of Lading would not be binding upon the parties andalso that as no part of cause of action arose in Chennai, applicationwas not maintainable – High Court dismissed the Original Petitionfiled under Art.227 of the Constitution of India accepting the viewof Kochi court – On appeal, held: Respondent expressly agreed tobe bound by the arbitration clause despite the fact that it was aprinted condition annexed to the Bill of Lading – Further, respondentitself had filed recovery suit by relying upon the Bill of Lading aspart of its cause of action – Therefore, respondent cannot blow hotand cold and argue that for the purpose of its suit, it will rely uponthe Bill of Lading (though unsigned) but for the purpose ofarbitration, the requirement of the Arbitration Act that the arbitrationclause should be signed is not fulfilled – The order of High Court isset aside..