The jurisdiction for appointing an arbitrator lies with the court where the principal agreement was executed, as per Section 11(6), despite a venue specified in an ancillary agreement.

JUDGMENT :

(Sunita Agarwal, CJ.)

1. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Devang Nanavati assisted by learned counsel Mr. Tabish Samdani appearing for the petitioner, and learned counsel Mr. Mohit Gupta appearing for the respondent.

2. In the instant petition, seeking for appointment of arbitrator under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1996’, for short), two issues have been raised by the learned counsel for the respondent for consideration, raising an objection with regard to appointment of Arbitrator on the dispute arising out of the Maintenance and Amenities Agreement (hereinafter referred to as ‘M & E Agreement’, for short) dated 07.05.2018, and further with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996.

3. Contesting the claim of the petitioner to appoint Arbitrator, to deal with the dispute arising out of the M & E Agreement, it is argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that M & E Agreement contains no arbitration clause and the arbitration clause in the Lease Agreement dated 01.03.2018 cannot be invoked to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator. Second submission is that, even if it is assumed for a moment without admitting that the arbitration clause under the Lease Agreement dated 01.03.2018 can be invoked for appointment of Arbitrator to deal with the above noted dispute, this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996, inasmuch as, the seat of the arbitration as agreed is at Bangalore, as per Clause ‘25’ of the agreement. It was argued that a bare reading of the Clause 25(ii) of the Lease Agreement indicates that the parties had agreed that the arbitration proceedings will be conducted at Bangalore, and hence, the seat of the arbitration having been agreed, the jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 can only be with the Karnataka High Court.

4. Reliance is placed on the decisions in BGS SGS Coma JV versus NPHC reported in (2020) 4 SCC 234, M/s. Devyani International Ltd. versus Siddhivinayak Builders and Developers reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11156 , Cinepolis India Pvt. Ltd. versus Celebration City Projects Pvt. Ltd. and Another reported in 2020 SCC Online Del 301 , M/s. Raman Deep Singh Taneja versus Crown Realtech Private Limited reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Del 11966 , to substantiate the above submission.

5. In reply to the objections raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, it was argued by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner and the respondent had executed a Lease Agreement dated 01.03.2018 for leasing of the premises admeasuring 68,890 sq. feet at Building No. 12, Jupiter Industrial & Logiparks, Survey No. 607, Vadala Road, Village Hariyala, District Kheda, Gujarat – 387120 for warehouses. Another agreement named as M & E Agreement dated 07.05.2018 was executed between the parties, whereunder the respondent had agreed to maintain the premises under Lease and provide various common services and amenities there