DIPAK MISRA,J. - (1.) Though innumerable facts have been graphically stated in the petitions seeking leave to appeal as well as in the written note of submissions, yet regard being had to the centrality of the controversy, we shall refer to the facts which are absolutely necessary for adjudication of the lis in question. It may be stated that the High Court has narrated the facts in detail on various aspects, for it was deciding a writ petition and a petition preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity, 'the Act') together and it was required to advert to the "seat of arbitration and venue of arbitration" to determine the maintainability of the petition in the Courts of India. That apart, the High Court was obliged to dwell upon the territorial jurisdiction of a petition under Section 34 of the Act at Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh or High Court of Delhi, in case the Courts in India have the jurisdiction to deal with the objections as postulated under Part I of the Act. Be it noted, a petition under Section 34 of the Act was filed before the learned District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh who vide order dated 06.07.2011 had not entertained the application on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction and returned it to be filed before the appropriate Court and the appeal arising therefrom, that is, FAO (D) 1304 of 2011, filed before the High Court of Allahabad was dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Thereafter, Writ Petition No. 20945 of 2014 was filed challenging the order dated 06.07.2011 of the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. In the meantime, a petition under Section 34 of the Act came to be filed before the High Court of Delhi.
(2.) When the matter stood thus, ITE India Pvt. Limited approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 22318-22321 of 2010. On 15.09.2015, the Court passed the following order: "In course of hearing, we have been apprised that on behalf of ITE India Private Limited, an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Act') is pending before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi. At this juncture, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submitted that he had filed an application under Section 34 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. who had rejected the application to be filed before the proper court. Against the order passed by the District Judge, an FAO, i.e. FAFO (D) No.1304/2011 was filed before the High Court of Allahabad, Bench at Allahabad and same has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability. Be it stated, thereafter the 2nd respondent has challenged the order passed by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP in Writ Petition (C) No. 20945 of 2014 titled as International Trade Expo Centre Ltd. vs. Mukesh Sharma and Ors. In our considered opinion, the writ petition and the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act in Delhi High Court should be heard together by one court and accordingly, we transfer the writ petition from Allahabad and accordingly it is ordered that the writ petition be transferred to the High Court of Delhi and be heard by the same learned Judge who is hearing the petition under Section 34 of the Act. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Allahabad for transmitting the record to the High Court of Delhi. A copy of the order be sent to the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court of Delhi is requested to nominate a Judge who will hear the writ petition as well as the application preferred under Section 34 of the Act. The nominated judge, we request, should to dispose both the matters by the end of November 2015. Let the matter be listed for further hearing on 08.12.2015."
(3.) It is worthy to mention that extension of time was sought for by the parties and was granted. Before the High Court the appellant took the stand that the application under Section 34 was not maintainable since Part I of the Act is not applicable regard being had to the arbitration clause in the agreement from which it is discernible that the courts in London have jurisdiction. Learned single Judge by the impugned order came to hold that application filed under Section 34 of the Act is maintainable and the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the same and accordingly directed the objection to be filed under Section 34 before the Court.;