The main legal point established in the judgment is that the venue of arbitration does not confer exclusive jurisdiction on the courts at that venue. Territorial jurisdiction is determined based on the cause of action and the parties' business locations.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred as "The Act") seeks appointment of an Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties, which have arisen out of the work order dated 12.10.2021 issued by the petitioner.

2. At the outset itself, it may be noted that while the respondent does not deny that the disputes between the parties were required to be adjudicated through arbitration, the petition is opposed only on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. It is the respondent's plea that the parties having agreed that the venue of arbitration would be at Gurugram, Haryana, this Court would not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Act.

3. By placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Brahmani River Pellets Ltd. v. Kamachi Industries Ltd., (2020)5 SCC 462, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the parties having agreed to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at Gurugram, the present petition would not be maintainable. He contends that in Brahmani River Pellets Limited Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court has dealt with a similar situation where the Madras High Court had erroneously exercised jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act to appoint an arbitrator despite the parties having agreed that the venue of arbitration would be Bhubaneswar, Odisha. This decision of the Madras High Court was set aside by the Apex Court by holding that once the parties had agreed for the venue of the arbitration as Bhubaneswar, the intention of the parties was to exclude the jurisdiction of all other Courts. It was held that by agreeing that the venue of arbitration would be Bhubaneswar, the parties had implicitly agreed for the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts at Bhubaneswar. He therefore contends that in the present case as well, the parties having agreed that all the sittings of the Arbitral Tribunal would be at Gurugram, Haryana, their intention was to exclude the jurisdiction of all other Courts. He therefore prays that the present petition be dismissed.

4. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks to place reliance on a subsequent decision of the Apex Court in Ravi Ranjan Developers (P.) Ltd. v. Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 568, where even though the parties had agreed that the sittings of the Arbitral Tribunal would be at Kolkata, neither the cause of action had arisen in Kolkata nor were the parties residing/carrying out business in Kolkata. In the said case, not only were the parties residing/carrying out business in Bihar but even the cause of action had arisen only in Bihar. However, by relying on the agreement between the parties designating Kolkata as the venue for arbitration, a petition under Section 11 was filed by one of the parties before the Calcutta High Court, which proceeded to appoint an arbitrator. This order of the Calcutta High Court was set aside by the Apex Court by holding that once the entire cause of action had arisen in Bihar, the mere factum of the parties agreeing that the venue of arbitration would be Kolkata, would not clothe the Calcutta High Court with the jurisdiction to entertain a petition under Section 11(6) of the Act. He, therefore, contends that in the present case as well, once it is an admitted position that not only are the registered offices of both the parties situated at Delhi but even the site where the work was carried out under the contract was in Delhi, it is only this Court which would have the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. Furthermore, even the invoices issued by the respondent were addressed to the petitioner's Delhi office and therefore no cause of action whatsoever had arisen at Gurugram. He therefore prays that the present petition be allowed.

5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, I may begin by first noting th