JUDGMENT :

SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.

1. The award debtor has preferred the instant application under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against an arbitral award dated May 22, 2018 passed by Sh. K. Balasubramanium, Sole Arbitrator. The award debtor in the instant application is Redington (India) Limited.

2. The award holder has challenged the maintainability of the instant application before this Court wherein it has been argued that this Court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the instant application as per the arbitration clause contained between the parties in the instant case. In reply, It has been argued by the award debtor that the arbitral clause between the parties in the instant case is an invalid one. The award holder has vehemently opposed the said challenge. Therefore, in this judgment, I have only dealt with the issue of maintainability of the instant Section 34 application.

Facts

3. I have outlined the facts of the instant lis below:

a. The award debtor is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and is involved in the production, sale, distribution of Desktop and Laptop Computer and diverse accessories of computer.

b. The award debtor was under the requirement of various information technology related products which included computers, desktops, laptops, and other computer hardware and peripherals. The award debtor was approached by the award holder for supply of such information technology related peripherals and computer hardware. After meetings and negotiations, it was agreed upon that, the award holder shall act as the vendor of the award debtor and shall cause supply of required components, computer accessories, peripherals and hardware to the award debtor.

c. Based on final products supplied by the award holder, the award debtor used to supply such finished products i.e. Chirag branded Computers, Desktops and Laptops with accredited OEM software installed therein as per the clients requirement to its said clients.

d. During the course of the business relationship between the award debtor and the award holder, the award debtor placed orders to the tune of INR 54,64,78,823.70 (Fifty four crores sixty four lakhs seventy eight thousand eight hundred twenty three rupees and seventy paise only). However, during the course of time award debtor alleged delays in the supply of ordered components by the award holder in respect of various invoices.

e. Due to such alleged delay in supply of ordered components, certain issues arose in payments to be made by the award debtor to the award holder.

f. As a result, On August 21, 2014, the award holder sent an arbitration notice to the award debtor claiming an amount of INR 1,30,46,250 (One crore thirty lakhs forty six thousand two hundred and fifty rupees only). The award holder vide the said letter also nominated Sh. K. Balasubramanium as the arbitrator.

g. On May 25, 2018 the arbitrator passed an award directing the award debtor to pay the award holder a sum of INR 1,06,01,817/- (One cores six lakhs one thousand eight hundred seventeen rupees only) along with interest @ 18% per annum.

h. The award debtor filed the instant application being AP 626 of 2018 before this Court challenging the said arbitral award dated May 25, 2018 under Section 34 of the Act.

Contentions By The Award Holder

4. Mr. Sandip Kumar De, learned counsel appearing for the award holder has made the following submissions:

a. As per clause 19 of the invoices raised by the award holder which were being raised all throughout the transactions taking place over the years since September, 2008, the dispute would be subject to arbitration to be held in Chennai and Chennai courts would have exclusive jurisdiction to try all cases, both civil and criminal.

b. Although there had never been any objection towards the clauses of the invoices raised by the award holder since the transactions were taking place from September, 2008