Badar Durrez Ahmed, ACJ. (Oral)

1. This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) was, as per roster, heard by a learned single Judge of this Court. By an order dated 04.02.2014, the learned single Judge, because he felt that an earlier decision of a single Judge in Sai Consulting Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Rail Vikas Nigam Ltd. (OMP No.981/2012 decided on 18.02.2013) required re-consideration, referred the issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction for determination by a larger bench. That is how this petition is before us.

2. The question which needs resolution is whether this court would have territorial jurisdiction to hear the present petition under Section 9 of the said Act when neither the respondents reside in Delhi nor has any part of the cause of action arisen in Delhi, but the arbitration clauses provide that the arbitration proceedings shall be held in New Delhi ? In other words, is the agreed seat or place of arbitration alone sufficient to confer territorial jurisdiction on the courts of that place ?

3. A brief resume of facts would be necessary. The parties had executed two agreements – a