JUDGMENT

Navin Chawla, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the `Act') has been filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation to the Collaboration Agreement dated 17.05.2011 read with Supplementary Collaboration Agreement dated 18.03.2013 between the parties. Both the Agreements contain an Arbitration Agreement between the parties. The only dispute raised by the respondent is with respect to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present petition.

2. The Collaboration Agreement dated 17.05.2011 contains the Arbitration Agreement in the form of Clause 24 thereof, which is reproduced herein below:

"Clause 24: That any dispute or difference touching upon or arising of or in connection with this Agreement or interpretation of any of the provisions of this Agreement, shall be resolved amicably at the first instance. If such disputes are unresolved for a period exceeding 30 (thirty) days, such disputes shall be submitted to arbitration. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Rules framed thereunder and any amendments thereto. The venue of arbitration shall be at New Delhi."

3. Clause 31 of the Collaboration Agreement provides that the "Courts at Gurgaon shall have the jurisdiction of all the matters concerning this Agreement".

4. While the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon Clause 24 and specifically where it states that the venue of the arbitration shall be at New Delhi, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that Courts at Gurgaon have been given jurisdiction and therefore, this Court would not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.

5. As far as the Supplementary Collaboration Agreement is concerned, admittedly there is no separate clause providing for the jurisdiction in Gurgaon Courts. As far as the venue is concerned, Clause 30 of the Supplementary Collaboration Agreement is relevant and is reproduced herein below:

"That any dispute or difference touching upon or arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or interpretation of any of the provisions of this Agreement, shall be resolved amicably at the first instance. If such disputes are unresolved for a period exceeding 30 (thirty) days, such disputes shall be submitted to arbitration. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, l996 read with Rules framed thereunder and any amendments thereto. The arbitration proceedings shall be conducted in English. The venue of arbitration shall be at New Delhi. This shall in no manner preclude the Parties to resort to/approach the concerned courts having territorial jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter of this Supplementary Agreement for interim reliefs, appointment of arbitrator, etc."

(Emphasis supplied)

6. A reading of the above clause would show that the venue for arbitration was fixed at New Delhi. As this would have vested exclusive jurisdiction in Court at Delhi, the parties expressly carved out an exception by providing as under:

"This shall in no manner preclude the Parties to resort to/approach the concerned courts having territorial jurisdiction with respect to the subject matter of this Supplementary Agreement for interim reliefs, appointment of arbitrator, etc."

7. Therefore, the word "venue" used in Clause 24 of the Collaboration Agreement and Clause 30 of the Supplementary Collaboration Agreement, in my opinion has to be construed as the `seat' of arbitration.

8. In Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited v. Datawind Innovations Private Limited, (2017) 7 SCC 678, the Supreme Court has held that once the seat of the arbitration has been fixed, it would be in the nature of an exclusive jurisdiction claus