JUDGMENT :

1. A preliminary objection as to maintainability has been taken by the respondent on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court. It is argued by learned senior counsel for the respondent that the arbitration clause categorically stipulates that the Mumbai Courts would have exclusive jurisdiction, whereas the arbitration shall be held at Kolkata. Hence, it is contended that Kolkata was chosen merely as a venue whereas the seat of arbitration has to be Mumbai, thereby conferring jurisdiction on the Bombay High Court to take up an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the 1996 Act”).

2. The Learned Senior Advocate for the respondent, in support of his submission, cites a Delhi High Court judgment rendered in CVS Insurance and Investments Vs. Vipul IT Infrasoft Pvt. Ltd., reported at 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12149, as well as another Delhi High Court judgment delivered in Virgo Softech Ltd. Vs. National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology, reported at 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12723. Against Virgo Softech Ltd (supra), a special leave petition was preferred, which was dismissed by the Supreme