- (1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant upon being aggrieved by and/or dissatisfied with the judgement and order of the District Judge in-charge, Jhansi dated 13th February, 2008 rejecting the application for ad interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter in short called as the 'act') passed in Misc. Petition No. 01 of 2008 (M/s. Magnum Builders & Developers and Chawala Constructions Vs. Ircon International Limited and another ). However, Ircon International Ltd. and another, the respondents herein, have filed cross- objection. Therefore, both have been heard analogously. The order impugned passed by the Court below is distinctly divided into three parts i. e. (a) jurisdiction; (b) maintainability; and (c) merit. Since the question of jurisdiction is involved, we have called upon the learned Counsel appearing for the parties to make their respective submissions on that score, but Mr. S. M. A. Kazmi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, wanted to make a composite argument in respect of all the points and left the matter to the Court for due consideration. However, according to us, jurisdictional point is to be considered at first. Therefore, we make it clear that if we come to the ultimate conclusion that the Court has no jurisdiction, the Court will obviously conclude the finding therein instead of making unnecessary discussion on merit, otherwise the Court will deal with other points. The dispute is in respect of territorial jurisdiction. On an earlier occasion when an appeal was preferred before this Court, the Court held that irrespective of the order for the time being passed on 17th January, 2008 the question of jurisdiction and maintainability will be considered by the Court below at first on an issue that Delhi High Court has considered the matter on merit and passed an order, which was concealed by the contesting respondent therein. However, following such direction of this High Court, the Court below has considered the point of jurisdiction and drawn an inference that the Court below has jurisdiction to entertain, try and determine the application on the following grounds: "1. There is no dispute that the work place for the construction of 294 doubling units in Marid Accommodation Project lies in Jhansi.
(2.) THERE is no dispute with regard to the fact that subordinate office of the opposite parties is situated in Jhansi. For the work of 294 doubling units tender notice was published in Jhansi. The agreement/contract dated 16. 8. 2005 between Ircon International Ltd. Palika Bhawan Sector-XIII, R. K. Puram, New Delhi and the petitioner was executed by Addl. General Manager, Married Accommodation Project, DH/1/13, Virangana Nagar, Jhansi. The agreement indicates that Addl. General Manager, Jhansi was acting for the opposite parties.
(3.) THE agreement also indicates that both parties and witnesses had signed the agreement in Jhansi. The tender acceptance letter dated 26. 4. 2005, issued by the opposite parties, indicates that the petitioner was requested to furnish performance security for an amount of Rs. 86,01,087/- to Addl. General Manager/civil/ph/jhansi.;