JUDGMENT :

Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

3. The petitioners have challenged order passed by the Court of District Judge-1, Malkapur, whereby an application filed by them under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “said Act”) has been dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

4. The contention of the respondent was accepted by the Court below that since the place/seat of arbitration in the present case was at Nagpur, only the Courts at Nagpur had jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 34 of the said Act. The petitioners in this writ petition are seriously disputing the assertion of the respondent that the place/seat of arbitration in the present case was at Nagpur.

5. The petitioners and the respondent entered into a Partnership Deed on 01/04/1997 and clause 13 of the said Deed was the arbitration clause providing for resolution of disputes between the parties by way of arbitration. As disputes arose between the parties, the respondent filed an application under section 11 of the said Act before this Court for appoi