By consent, heard finally.

2. This is the First Appeal filed by the original plaintiff against the order dated 22.03.2007 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.4142/2006 by the learned Judge of Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay, whereby in Notice of Motion, by consent of the parties, a preliminary issue of maintainability of the Suit was raised and decided against him by holding that Suit is not maintainable in view of the scheme and object of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "The Arbitration Act, 1996").

3. On 26.02.2007 the Court has framed the following issues: Whether defendants prove that in view of Arbitration Act this Hon’ble Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present Suit?

4. The relevant events and facts are as under:

In November, 2001, Respondents 1 to 5 requested the Appellant to import waste paper on their behalf and made on account payment of Rs.10,00,000/-. Appellant imported goods worth about Rs.21,66,230/- on behalf of Respondents 1 to 5.

5. On 28.04.2004 the Appellant become entitled to receive Rs.13,82,835/- as his share of profit in the said import business in view of various amounts already paid by him to Respondents 1 to 5.

6. On 29.04.2005, the Advocate for Respondents 1 to 5 addressed letter to the Appellant contending that the Appellant allegedly executed alleged writing dated 01.04.2003 interalia admitting his alleged liability to pay Rs.31,80,000/- to the Respondents 1 to 5 with interest at 24% and also allegedly agreeing to refer the matter to Arbitrator to be appointed by Respondents 1 to 5 in the event of non payment. By the said letter the said Advocate threatened to refer the matter to alleged Arbitrator Mr.Bharat B. Jain if payment was not made as per alleged Arbitration Agreement. On 11.05.2005 Appellant through his Advocate denied having executed alleged writing dated 01.04.2003 and asked for inspection of the same. The appellant has not paid the amount. On 21.07.2005 Mr.Bharat B. Jain Advocate claiming to be sole Arbitrator allegedly appointed by Respondents 1 to 5 as per said alleged writing dated 01.04.2003, fixed meeting for Arbitration. Number of letters were thereafter exchanged between the parties where Appellant pointed out that the alleged Arbitration was without any authority and the said alleged writing dated 01.04.2003 is a forged one.

7. On 07.12.2005 Mr.Bharat B. Jain Advocate addressed letter recording that he was withdrawing from Arbitration as his conscience did not allow to continue as Arbitrator in view of serious allegations of forgery and pendency of criminal case in respect thereof.

8. On 16.12.2005 Mr.Piyush M. Shah, Advocate addressed letter claiming to be appointed by Respondents 1 to 5 as Arbitrator under alleged writing dated 01.04.2003. The Appellant pointed out the relevant facts to Mr.Piyush M. Shah but he persisted in going on with the alleged Arbitration.

9. On 20.02.2006 Mr.Piyush M. Shah addressed letter directing Appellant to deposit Rs.20,000/- with him on account of alleged Arbitration fee.

10. On 21.08.2006 Respondent no.6 passed an ex-parte Order in the alleged Arbitration proceeding for forwarding the alleged confirmation letter dated 01.04.2003 to handwriting expert.

11. On 12.09.2006 the Appellant filed the Suit.

12. On 29.09.2006 the Judge of the City Civil Court passed order recording that next date for Arbitration is not fixed and directing Respondent no.6 to give notice if he wanted to fix any meeting for hearing. Liberty was granted to the Appellant to move Court for ad-interim relief if such notice is received. Such notice has thereafter not been issued till date.

13. The relevant Section 16 of Arbitration Act, 1996 is reproduced as under:

16. Competence of arbitral tribunal to rule on its jurisdiction. –

(1) The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement, and for that purpose.- (a) an arbitrat