SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. In order to resolve the dispute arisen between the parties by way of arbitration, Arbitral Tribunal was constituted in accordance with Loan cum Hypothecation cum Guarantee agreement dated 26.09.2012 and ultimately Arbitral Tribunal delivered an award on 12th June, 2014 directing the petitioner to make payment of awarded amount along with interest.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award, appellants herein filed an application under Section 34 (2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth "Act, 1996") before the District Judge, Bilaspur in which after notice, respondent herein filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code (henceforth "Code") that the Court at Mumbai has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1996 in view of Clause 24.1 of the agreement, therefore, application filed under Section 34(2) of the Act, 1996 is liable to be rejected.

3. Learned District Judge, Bilaspur, by its impugned Order dated 12.02.2016 granted the application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code and dismissed the application under Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1996 leading to filling of this appeal under Section 37(c) of the Act, 1996.

4. The above mentioned all the arbitration appeals are filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth 'Act, 1996') by both the appellants namely Vijay Kumar Agrawal & Raj Kumar Agrawal, respectively and since the common question of law is involved in all three arbitration appeals, therefore, they were heard analogously and being decided by this common order.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the learned District Judge has committed jurisdictional error in granting application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code as the cause of action and the subject matter of dispute vehicle in question was seized by the respondents within the jurisdiction of Bilaspur Court and sold it in auction by the respondents at Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) and therefore, Bilaspur Court has the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1996. He would further submit that the parties by way of agreement can not confer or ouster jurisdiction on a Civil Court on their own sweet will. He relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of ABC Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & another v. A.P. Agencies, Salem AIR 1989 SC 1239 in support of his submission.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents while supporting the impugned order would submit that the petitioner has entered into agreement with open eyes in which there is exclusive jurisdiction clause in the contract agreement, therefore, jurisdiction of the Courts and Tribunals at other places is expressly excluded and the Mumbai Court mentioned in the agreement will only have the jurisdiction over the matter and, therefore, learned District Judge is absolutely justified in allowing the application under Order 7 Rule 11 and holding that Bilaspur Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 (2) of the Act, 1996 for setting aside of the ex parte award therefore, appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed.

7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and the documents appended thereto with utmost circumspection.

8. In order to resolve the dispute, it would be appropriate to notice Clauses 23.1 and 28.1 of the Loan cum Hypothecation cum Guarantee agreement dated 26.09.2012, which contain arbitration & jurisdiction clauses, which reads thus:-

"23.1. Arbitration-All dispute, differences and/or claims arising out of this Loan Agreement or as to the construction, meeting or effect hereof or as to the rights and liabilities of the parties hereunder shall be settled by arbitration to be held in Mumbai in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 19