The main legal point established in the judgment is that disputes relating to immovable property must be brought within the courts holding territorial sway over them, and the court in Delhi must decline to exercise jurisdiction over immovable property situated beyond its territorial boundaries.

( 1 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties in great detail and, therefore, proceed to decide the Appeals on merits.

( 2 ) A neat question of law has arisen before us in these two appeals. It pertains to the proper forum for adjudication of disputes, through arbitration, in respect of immovable property at 17, Shakespeare sarani, Theatre Road, Kolkata-71. The landlady of this property is Mrs. Lila mookerjee who has constituted her son, Mr. Amitava Mookerjee as her general attorney having allowed him the use of 2200 square feet of 'super area' on the ground and first floor ("shop space" for short ). In this capacity Shri mookerjee had, in May 2000, entered into a Joint Venture Retail Agreement (JVRA) with Sports Station India Pvt. Ltd. (in brief Sports Station) the Respondent in both Appeals, the salient clauses/terms for the present controversy are that possession of the shop space was handed over to Sports Station and that the latter could further appoint its franchisee for "nike" products. For this arrangement the consideration was Rs. 1,70,000/- or 8% (5% in respect of reduction/clearance sales) payable by Sports Station to Mr. Mookerjee. The JVRA is for a period of nine years with renewal options, but is terminable by Mr. Mookerjee if Sports Station commits a material breach of its terms. Clause 38 is the Arbitration Agreement which specifies, inter alia, that arbitration proceedings would be held in Calcutta, and that Calcutta Courts would have jurisdiction. In fact, considerable litigation between these two parties has already commenced and is pending.

( 3 ) THE second Agreement dated 29-4-2003 is between Sports Station and north Eastern Handloom and Handicrafts (hereinafter 'north Eastern' ). By its terms Sports Station is liable to pay the rent of the premises, the Ground Floor (showroom) of which are to be used for as a showroom and the First Floor (stockroom) for storage of stock. North Eastern has contracted to act as the management Agent of Sports Station on commission basis; sales would be effected at prices determinable by Sports Station. This Agreement was to be co-terminus with the 'lease Agreement' [reference obviously being to the JVRA]. Clause 17 is the Arbitration Agreement between Sports Station and North Eastern, inter alia stipulating that arbitration proceedings shall be held in New Delhi and nowhere else and that Courts in Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction over disputes between these two parties.

( 4 ) SPORTS Station filed a Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (A and C Act for short) seeking a restraint against North eastern from interfering with the peaceful possession and functioning of the sports Station and its Representatives from the showroom and also for restraining North Eastern from stocking or selling its own merchandise from the showroom; and for restraint order against North Eastern from removing and selling the stocks lying at the First Floor. Yet another application has been filed by Sports Station inter alia praying for injuncting North Eastern from selling any products from the shop space. Neither Mr. A. Mookerjee nor Mrs. L. Mookerjee have been impleaded in the proceedings initiated by the Respondent sports Station in this Court. Consequently, neither of the Mookerjees have been granted a hearing by the learned Single Judge and therefore their interests have been ignored. North Eastern has filed FAO (OS) No. 127/2007 since the learned single Judge has restrained it "from interfering with the peaceful possession and functioning of Sports Station and its representatives from the showroom situated at 17, Shakespeare Sarani, Theatre Road, Calcutta. . . . (and) from stocking any of its products at the said premises or carrying on sale of any goods from the said showroom with immediate effect". The Appellant, North eastern, has also been directed to remove himself and his stocks and goods lying in the said premises withi