( 1 ) THE petitioner had entered into a contract for construction of Filteration Plant for Additional Huts at Hissar Cantt. The site of the work is situated within the State of Haryana. It is a defence work to be carried out under the Engineer in Chief Army Headquarters and Chief Engineer, Military Engineering Service,-Chandigarh. Respondent No. 4 is seized of the arbitration proceedings at Lucknow. The petitioner seeks revocation of the authority of the arbitrator and his removal followed by appointment of another arbitrator. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that because the appointing authority of the arbitrator is respondent No. 2 situated at New Delhi and further because the contract was entered into at Delhi and letter of revocation arid the contract was also delivered to the petitioner at New Delhi, the Court at Delhi has the jurisdiction to try the petition.

( 2 ) IN Kamal Pushap Enterprises, 56 (1994) DLT 259; DRJ (31) 1994 651 this Court has clearly taken the view following the law laid down by a Division Bench of Madras High Court in M. Vankatasamiappa v. Srinidhi Ltd, 1950 (1) MLJ 709:

(A) The Arbitration Act does not contemplate nor d