Prathiba M. Singh, J.

The present Section 34 petition arises out of the impugned award dated 21st December, 2012 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal constituted by the Cotton Association of India (hereinafter the "CAI"), by a 2:1 majority, as also order dated 23rd September, 2013 passed by the Board of Directors of the CAI, dismissing the appeal filed by of the Petitioner, with costs. A preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the present petition has been raised by the Respondent. The present judgment deals with the said preliminary objection.

2. It is submitted on behalf of M/s Louis Dreydus Commodities India Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent (hereinafter, "Respondent") that the arbitration was conducted under the Rules and Bye-laws of the CAI and proceedings were held in CAI's office in Mumbai. Hence, only Courts in Mumbai can entertain a challenge to the said award. The case of M/s Spentex Industries Ltd. - Petitioner (hereinafter, "Petitioner"), on the other hand, is that the contract has an exclusive jurisdiction clause, which vests jurisdiction in the Courts in Delhi and the present petition is, thus, maintainable before this Court.

3. Brief background of the case is that Respondent/Claimant entered into three agreements for sale of Indian raw cotton with the Petitioner. A total of 50,000 bales of cotton were to be sold under the three contracts.

4. However, disputes arose between the parties. Both were members of CAI and were bound by the Rules and By-laws governing the said association. The contract, between the parties, contained the following clauses.

"ARBITRATION

All disputes will be resolved through arbitration in accordance with the rules and by laws of the Cotton Association of India, Mumbai.

........................

JURISDICTION

The Court in New Delhi alone will have the exclusive jurisdiction to deal with any matter arising out of arbitration proceedings or the award. This contract incorporates all terms printed overleaf."

5. The Arbitral Tribunal was constituted as per the Rules and By-laws of the CAI and the impugned award was rendered by a 2:1 majority in favour of the Respondent. A sum of Rs. 15,07,11,688/- together with interest @ 15% per annum was awarded. An appeal was filed against this award by the Petitioner, before the Board of Directors, CAI, which was also dismissed, vide order dated 23rd September, 2013. The Petitioner has challenged the said award and order before this Court.

6. Mr. Sanat Kumar, Ld. Senior counsel raises the issue of maintainability and relies on clause 38 and clause 44A of the By-laws of the CAI. The same read as under:

"Arbitration and Conciliation other than regarding quality

38.- (A) All unpaid claims whether admitted or not, and all disputes and differences (other than those relating to quality) arising out of or in relation to -

(a) cotton transactions between members including any dispute as to the existence of such transactions; or

(b) cotton contracts (whether forward or ready and whether between members or between a-member and a non-member) made subject to these By-laws or subject to C.A.I. arbitration, or containing words or abbreviations to a similar effect including any dispute as to the existence of such transaction provided in the latter case the parties had agreed in writing before entering into business relation that any dispute arising between them out of that agreement or any such transactions that may be entered into including any dispute as to the existence of such transaction shall be referred to arbitration under the By-laws of the Association; or

(c) the rights and/or responsibilities of commission agents, and or brokers not parties to such transactions or contracts; or

(d) commission agency agreement entered into subject to these By-laws or subject to C.A.I. arbitration or containing words or abbreviations to a similar effect; or

(e) Cotton contracts covered by any such arbitration, agreement;

shall be referred to the arbitration as per provisions contained in the Rules o