RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. 1. This petition under Section 20 r/w Section 2(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is preferred for a direction to be issued to the arbitrator to hold the arbitration proceedings at Delhi as provided in the written agreement between the parties. This court, vide ex-parte order dated 2nd April, 2009 which continues to be in force, has stayed the proceedings before the arbitrator. The respondent has contested the petition, inter-alia on the ground of maintainability thereof.

2. The parties hereto are parties to a contract dated 31st January, 2001. Though in the said contract, the place of execution thereof has not been stated but the address therein of the petitioner is of New Delhi and of the respondent of USA. The contract is signed by an official of the petitioner whose rubber stamp bears the address of New Delhi. From the contract, it is not clear as to where the same has been signed on behalf of the respondent. However, since it has been signed on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondent on the same day, it is presumed to have been executed at New Delhi. In any case, the address given of the petitioner in the said agreement for service of all notices etc. is that of New Delhi and the address so given of the respondent is of USA. This court thus is the court within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act. The respondent also has neither in its reply nor its arguments disputed the territorial jurisdiction of this court. 3. The contract between the parties is for the respondent to provide the construction supervision services to the petitioner for development of the Golden Quadrilateral constituting inter-alia the road on NH-5 & NH-60 from Chennai to Calcutta and, particularly four laning and strengthening of the stretches between Khurda to Bhubaneswar, Chandikhole to Bhadrak and Bhadrak to Balasore all in the State of Orissa.

4. The contract provides for settlement of disputes by arbitration. The arbitration was agreed to be either of a sole arbitrator or of an arbitration panel composed of three arbitrators; where the parties agreed that the dispute concerns a technical matter, they were given liberty to agree to appointment of a sole arbitrator and failing such agreement within 30 days, procedure is provided for the President, Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi to furnish five nominees of which the parties were entitled to select one; if the parties could not select out of the said nominees also, the sole arbitrator is to be appointed by the President, Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi; however, where the parties do not agree that the dispute concerns a technical matter, each party was to appoint an arbitrator with the two arbitrators jointly appointing the third arbitrator; if the two arbitrators are unable to agree on the third arbitrator, the same was agreed to be appointed by the Secretary, Indian Council of Arbitration, New Delhi (ICA). It is further the agreement that if either parties fails to appoint its arbitrator within 30 days after the other has appointed its arbitrator, the party which has appointed the arbitrator may apply to the ICA to appoint a sole arbitrator for the matter in dispute. It is further the agreement in Clause 8.2.5 of the Special Conditions of contract as under:- “8.2.5 Miscellaneous In any arbitration proceedings hereunder:

a. Proceedings shall, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, be held in Delhi

b. ………….”

5. It is the case of the respondent that disputes and differences having arisen between the parties and the parties having not considered the same as technical, the respondent appointed its arbitrator and called upon the petitioner to nominate its arbitrator; upon failure of the petitioner to so appoint the arbitrator, the respondent approached the ICA which vide its letter dated 10th September, 2008 appointed Mr. B.C. Tripathi, retired Chief Engineer-cum-Member (Technical), Arbitration Tribunal C/8 404 Radhika Tower, Tankapani Road, Bhubaneswar, to ac