VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.

( 1 ) THE question that arises in the present case is whether this Court should exercise territorial jurisdiction in respect of the present application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The facts in brief, as per the narration in the Petition, are that the Petitioner has its Registered and Head Office at New Delhi with Regional and Branch Offices in many other parts of India. The Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (G. Noida in brief) engaged the Petitioner for the construction of 60 M wide road in Greater Noida, at the contract value of Rs. 5. 37 crores. For reasons that need not be dilated in detail, including an increase in the price of store ballast, the Petitioner had sought a Revision of rates, which was not acceded to. Consequently, a demand for the appointment of an Arbitrator was made by the Petitioner. Certain Fixed Deposits Receipts (FDRs) are stated to have been encashed in the interregnum. Pursuant to their Agreement, the Petitioner has furnished a Bank Guarantee of Syndicate Bank, New Delhi in regard to which it apprehended an invocation by G. NOIDA. An injunction has accordingly been prayed for.

( 2 ) ON the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document