- (1.) There is no dispute as to the existence of the arbitration agreement between the parties. The two-fold objection taken by the respondent is that the Chief Justice of this Court may not be the appropriate authority for a request for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal to be carried to; and, that the attempt at reconciling the disputes was not undertaken before invoking the arbitration agreement. According to the respondent, no part of the petitioner's alleged cause of action relating to the agreement containing the arbitration clause could have arisen anywhere in the State of West Bengal. The respondent denies the assertion in the petition that the agreement was executed in Kolkata. The respondent suggests that since the work envisaged under the agreement was performed in Odisha and all obligations in terms of the agreement were also required to be discharged in Odisha, only the Chief Justice of the High Court in that State could have received a request under section 11 of the 1996 Act for the constitution of an arbitral tribunal.
(2.) Apart from the fact that there is an unequivocal statement in the petition that the agreement between the parties was executed in Kolkata., it must be appreciated that a question as to territorial jurisdiction does not go to the root of a matter in the sense of inherent lack of jurisdiction. It is possible that an objection as to territorial jurisdiction is taken in course of a request under section 11 of the 1996 Act only for the purpose of delaying the adjudication. The Chief Justice or his designate receiving a request under section 11 of the Act would. however, be entitled to dispose of the request if the grounds for invoking the jurisdiction of the Chief Justice or his designate are made out in the petition of request. If such grounds are made out in the petition of request, the Chief Justice or his designate will not allow any protracted argument on the question of territorial jurisdiction unless it appears that serious injustice would be occasioned to the respondent by continuing the matter in a particular forum. A question of territorial jurisdiction is unimportant in the context of section 11 of the Act since the merits of the disputes are not adjudicated upon at this stage and only an arbitrator is identified for the disputes in terms of the arbitration agreement to be adjudicated by the arbitrator.
(3.) As to the present application being premature in nature, it is evident from the correspondence exchanged between the parties that the petitioner had agreed to the process of reconciliation being conducted but nothing came of such attempt. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the arbitration agreement has been invoked without any attempt at reconciling the disputes.;