- (1.) Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that contrary to the fact that the arbitration agreement was entered into between the parties in Lucknow, the place of arbitration has been mentioned as Chennai vide Clause 19 of the agreement. It is also a submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the address of the respondent is noted as Mahindra Holidays & Resorts (P) Ltd., 7A, Second Floor, Habibullah Estate Ground, Hazratganj, Lucknow. The petitioner/contractor is also a native of State of U.P. and the subject matter of agreement namely the job of contractor was to be completed in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thus, according to learned counsel, since the cause of action has arisen in Lucknow and no part of cause of action arose at Chennai, nor even the site of work is situated there, this Court can exercise jurisdiction to appoint Arbitrator.
(2.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that since the arbitration clause provides for appointment of arbitrator and holding of arbitration proceedings at Chennai and further that the headquarter of the company is situated there, the petitioner should have invoked the jurisdiction of Chennai High Court for the purpose of appointment of arbitrator.
(3.) On giving an anxious consideration to the submissions, I find considerable force in the arguments of learned counsel for petitioner for the reason that no part of cause of action has arisen at Chennai to invite the jurisdiction of that High Court. Besides, the Arbitration agreement was executed at Lucknow, the petitioner as well as the respondent Company is established in U.P. and even the site of work is also located outside Chennai.;