Sanjib Banerjee, J. - (1.) The present request is the later in point of time under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pertaining to the same arbitration agreement. The agreement between the parties envisages the construction of a bridge somewhere in Orissa. The petitioner says that a substantial part of the cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court on its Original Side. The petitioner points out that even the respondent carries on business within jurisdiction.
(2.) It is, however, the admitted position that the request under Section 11 of the 1996 Act carried to the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court was earlier in point of time.
(3.) Section 11(11) of the 1996 Act mandates that if more than one request in respect of the same reference is made, then the Chief Justice to whom the earliest request is made would be competent to deal with the same. Section 11(12)(b) of the 1996 Act specifies the Chief Justice who would be competent to receive a request for constitution of an arbitral tribunal. Section 11(11) of the 1996 Act does not imply that a request under Section 11 may be carried to any Chief Justice and the first request would be the one that would have to be dealt with. The reference in Section 11(12)(b) of the Act to Section 2(1)(e) thereof implies that a Chief Justice or his designate would be competent to receive a request under Section 11 of the Act for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal if a suit founded on the subject-matter of the arbitration could have been instituted in a Court over which the relevant High Court in which the Chief Justice presides exercises superintendence within the meaning of Article 227 of the Constitution of India.;