A S Bopanna, J. - (1.) The petitioner is before this Court in this petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act' for short) seeking that a sole Arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate the dispute and differences between the petitioner and the respondent in terms of Clause 23.1 of the purchase order dated 02.11.2010 at Annexure-A.
(2.) The petitioner and the respondent have entered into a business transaction whereunder the petitioner was to supply seamless pipes during the period 22.10.2010 to 20.09.2011. The petitioner in that regard claims to have supplied pipes worth Rs.9,11,23,274/- and the respondent have paid only a sum of Rs.4,43,74,186/-. In that view, the petitioner claims that the balance of Rs.4,77,49,088/- is to be paid by the respondent and since the repeated correspondence has not borne any fruit, the dispute between the parties is to be resolved through arbitration as contained in clause 23 of the purchase order. Invoking the said clause the petitioner is seeking that an Arbitrator be appointed to resolve the dispute between the parties.
(3.) The respondent have filed their objections to the petition. Though with regard to the claim relating to the payment, contention has been raised with regard to the payments already made and also that the claim is barred by limitation, the respondents have also raised preliminary objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition under Section 11 of the Act. In that regard it is contended that the project relating to which the disputes have arisen is situate at Cuddalore in Tamil Nadu and the supplies have been made at that place. In that view the cause of action for the claim has arisen at Chennai or it can be at Mumbai where the suit had been filed. It is contended that the cause of action in any event has not arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court and as such the instant petition is not maintainable. The arbitration agreement no doubt provides for the arbitration proceedings to be held at Bengaluru but that does not give the jurisdiction to this Court as the term 'Court' for the purpose of Section 11 of the Act is as contained in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act to mean the Court having jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit. In that view, it is contended that in the absence of the arbitration clause if this Court could not have entertained a suit, a petition under Section 11 to appoint an Arbitrator also cannot be entertained.;