(ORAL)

1. This is a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. The contract in question was a contract whereby the petitioner supplied various Conveyors and also did related civil, electrical & instrumentation work at the Concentrate Warehouse of the respondent at Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. The present petition is filed because as per the petitioner the total value of the contract is Rs. 7,22,88,413/- out of which according to the petitioner it has received only Rs. 6,36,66,404/- and consequently the petitioner claims inter alia a sum of Rs. 86,22,009/- in addition to the other claims as mentioned in para 7.8 of the petition. The respondent has entered appearance and has filed reply. The basic contention on behalf of the respondent is that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction in view of the agreed clause 18 between the parties which reads as under:-

“ARBITRATION AND LAW

Any dispute, difference or claim arising out of under this Agreement or with regard to interpretation or any of the terms contained herein, if not resolved mutually, the same shall be referred to arbitration. The buyer and seller will appoint one arbitrator each and the two such arbitrators will appoint third arbitrator. This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of India and arbitration shall be as per the Indian Arbitration Act and Conciliation Act 1996 and shall be held at Chennai. In the event of any party hereto having referred any disputes, differences or claim arising out of or under the agreements/contract and/or work orders entered into pursuant thereto then any dispute, difference or claim arising out of or under the Contract, shall be referred to the same Arbitral Tribunal which has been so constituted for deciding the said disputes. The Arbitrators shall give reasoned award separately in respect of each claim. The language of arbitration shall be English. This agreement has been finalized and agreed upon by the parties in Chennai and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Chennai Courts only.”

2. The respondent has contended that this Court has no territorial jurisdiction as per para 1.3 of its reply. The same reads as under:

“1.3 It is most respectfully submitted that this Hon’ble Court has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present arbitration petition merely on the ground that the arbitration clause has not invoked from Delhi and the petitioner is working at New Delhi or that any cause of action has accrued in favour of Petitioner Company at Delhi. The submissions regarding jurisdiction raised by the petitioner company are contrary to clause 18 of the arbitration clause between the parties and also in light of the following issues:-

(a) All three contracts have been entered into between the parties at Tuticorin, the Registered Office of the respondent company is at Tuticorin. (b) The contracts scope, works and contract site at SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu. Performance guarantee was given at Tuticorin.

(c) As per clause 16, all correspondences were to be addressed at Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu.

(d) All invoices in terms of Clause 16.2 were to be addressed to Project Head at Tuticorin, Tamil Nadu.

(e) The venue of the arbitration is contemplated at Chennai in terms of Clause 18 of the Arbitration Agreement. It has been agreed upon between the parties that “this agreement has been finalized and agreed upon by the parties in Chennai and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of Chennai Courts only.”

It is noted that the clause in question obviously contains a mistake in that it states that the agreement has been finalized and agreed upon by the parties in Chennai. It is not disputed that all the contracts have been signed and executed at Tuticorin and not at Chennai. Accordingly, counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that since no part of the cause of action arose at Chennai therefore the Courts