Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. - (1.) While the application for vacating the interim order filed by the respondent No.1 was taken up for hearing, we were requested by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to dispose of the appeal itself on merit. We are informed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties that the relevant documents which are necessary for disposal of the appeal, are all annexed to the different applications filed by the parties in connection with the appeal.
(2.) Considering such submission of the learned counsel for the parties, we have decided to dispose of the appeal itself on merit. Even the learned counsel appearing for the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., the respondent No.2 makes an identical prayer before us. Accordingly, we have decided to dispose of the appeal itself on merit by dispensing with the requirement of filing paper books in this appeal.
(3.) By the impugned order being No. 23 dated 5th December, 2016 passed by the learned Judge, VIIIth Bench, City Civil Court at Calcutta in Misc. Case No.1406 of 2015, the application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the applicants/appellants was rejected by the learned Trial Judge by holding that the learned Judge lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the said application as the arbitration agreement which was executed between the partners viz. the appellants and the respondent no.1 in 2005 is still in force and the dispute relates to the partners' right in the partnership firm and no part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. It was further held that there is no dispute between the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and the partnership firm concerning their arbitration agreement contained in the dealership agreement of 2006 and as such, the place of business of the Indian Oil Corporation cannot be a decisive factor for conferring jurisdiction upon this Court to entertain this application.;