The court established that jurisdiction under Section 42 of the A&C Act allows it to entertain disputes for arbitration despite claims of exclusive jurisdiction in another court.

JUDGMENT

[Hearing Held Through Videoconferencing]

Vibhu Bakhru, J. (ORAL)--The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter `the A&C Act'), inter alia, praying as under:-

"i. Appoint a sole Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes between the parties and direct that the arbitration proceedings be conducted as per the Rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre, Delhi High Court, New Delhi.

ii. Award Costs of these proceedings in favour of the Petitioner and against the Defendant;"

2. The petitioner had purchased an apartment (1BHK apartment, bearing No. B-1, Ground Floor, Building `C' in Project, named, "Devasthali-the Valley of Gods" located at property No. 11/49 situated at Issorcim Village, Mormugao Taluka) from the respondent. The Sale Deed in respect of the said property was executed on 19.07.2010. On the same date, the parties also entered into an `Agreement for Management' (hereafter `the Agreement') whereby they agreed that the respondent would use the said apartment as a part of a Holiday Home Resort for a period of ten years from the date of execution of the Agreement.

3. The petitioner avers that she was induced into believing that the respondent would enter into an arrangement with a leading five-star resort/hotel and the use of the said apartment would yield high revenues.

4. The petitioner terminated the Agreement by a notice dated 31.07.2019 alleging various defaults on the part of the respondents.

5. Thereafter, the petitioner also sent a legal notice dated 27.08.2019 to M/s Alcott Town Planners Private Limited informing them about the action initiated against the respondent. However, M/s Alcott Town Planners Private Limited also failed to respond to the legal notices.

6. On 20.09.2019, the petitioner sent a legal notice invoking the agreement to refer the disputes to arbitration (Arbitration Clause under the Agreement) and calling upon the respondent to refer the disputes to arbitration under the Rules of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC).

7. The respondent responded to the said notice, inter alia, asserting that there are no disputes that require to be adjudicated by the arbitrator.

8. The petitioner, thereafter, sent another notice dated 12.12.2019 calling upon the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.50,27,309/- along with interest within a period of one week from the receipt of the said notice. The said claims were also disputed by the respondent.

9. The Agreement includes an Arbitration Clause that reads as under:

"19. In the event of any disputes and differences arising between the parties hereto in respect of interpretation of any of the covenants contained herein, the same shall be referred to a Sole Arbitrator mutually consented by both the parties and concluded as per the Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 amended from time to time. Otherwise the jurisdiction will that be of the Civil Court of Goa."

10. Mr. Rawat, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent does not dispute that the parties had entered into the Agreement. He, however, submits that there are no disputes as the said Agreement had expired by efflux of time. Second, he submits that this Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain the present petition as the party had specifically stipulated that the Courts at Goa would have jurisdiction.

11. Insofar as the first contention is concerned that no disputes exist between the parties, the same is unmerited. It is clear from the notices issued by the petitioner that she had called upon the respondent to pay certain amounts, which the res