The Court:

An objection on the ground of territorial jurisdiction pertaining to a request under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is more of an avoidable irritant, since in such proceedings, unlike in a full-fledged action, the only thing that a Chief Justice or his designate is required to do is to make a decision on whether there are live claims to go to arbitration and, if so, set up the arbitral tribunal. Yet, judicial propriety demands that the Chief Justice or his designate receiving a request under Section 11 of the Act keep within the bounds of authority.

The two points canvassed by the respondent here, though of similar ultimate effect, question the authority of the Chief Justice of this Court or his designate, in varying degrees, to take up this matter. The respondent says that since the disputes between the parties relate to a land which is situated in Delhi, no Court in this State could have received an application pertaining to the proposed reference and, as a consequence, the Chief Justice of this Court or his designate would not have the authority to receive a request under Section 11 of the Act in respect of such proposed reference.