Laxmi Narain Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS is revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 25.05.2011 (Annexure P -1) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula thereby dismissing petitioners' application under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short, the Act). There was contract between the parties executed in Haryana. Bank guarantee was furnished by the petitioners. Bank guarantee was obtained from bank at Delhi but furnished in Haryana.
(2.) PETITIONERS herein filed petition under Section 9 of the Act in High Court of Delhi seeking to restrain the respondent herein from encashing bank guarantee. Vide order dated 13.05.2001 Annexure P -2, Delhi High Court issued notice of the petition to respondent for 18.05.2001. However, on 18.05.2001, Hon'ble Judge was on leave and the case was adjourned to 25.05.2001. On 25.05.2001, counsel for the petitioner himself stated that the bank guarantee had already been encashed by the respondent and the petitioner had invoked arbitration clause. Accordingly as prayed for by counsel for the petitioner, the said petition under Section 9 of the Act was dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 25.05.2001. Arbitrator passed award in the arbitration proceedings. Respondent herein filed objections under Section 34 of the Act in District Court at Panchkula. Petitioners herein moved application Annexure P -5 under Section 42 of the Act alleging that in view of earlier petition under Section 9 of the Act having been filed in Delhi High Court, only said High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 34 of the Act and Court at Panchkula has no jurisdiction. The said application has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge by impugned order Annexure P -1. Feeling aggrieved, petitioners have filed the instant revision petition.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.;