P.K.BALASUBRAMANYAN, J. - (1.) THE parties to these two applications are the same the contracts involved are also similar in nature and the parties are also the same. Hence, these applications are being disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THESE applications are under Sec.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 calling upon the Chief Justice of this Court to appoint an arbitrator to arbitrate upon the disputes between the parties which have arisen in view of the claims made by the petitioner. Admittedly, there is an arbitration clause, Clause 2900 in the contract involved. But, the parties by way of Clause 2703, have dealt with jurisdiction. I extract paragraph -2703 herein : - - "Jurisdiction of Court. - -The Courts of the place from where the acceptance of tender has been issued shall alone have jurisdiction to decide any dispute arising out of or in respect of the contract."
(3.) THE petitioners have approached the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court with their applications under Sec.11(6) of the Act on the plea that a part of the cause of action arose n Jamshedpur, within the jurisdiction of High Court of Jharkhand, and hence the Chief Justice of the Jharkhand High Court or his nominee, has jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator in terms of Sec.11(6) of the Act. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the acceptance of the tenders submitted by the petitioners was at Chittranjan, within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Kolkata, and in view of paragraph -2703 of the contract between the parties quoted above, the jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator vests solely with the Chief Justice of Kolkata High Court or his nominee. Counsel for the respondents also referred to Section 11(12) of the Act in support of his contention that the Chief Justice of the High Court, which has jurisdiction, can exercise power under Sec.11(6) of the Act.;