(Deepak Gupta, J.) - The Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th April, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he has held that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the objections filed by the present appellant to the award of the Arbitrator.

2.The brief facts necessary for decision of the case are that the Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation which has now been re-named as Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as the appellant-objector) entered into a contract with M/s Continental Foundation Joint Venture which is an unincorporated joint venture between M/s Continental Construction Limited duly registered under the Indian Companies Act and Foundation Company of Canada Limited being a company registered under the laws of Canada. The contract was entered into between the parties for the purpose of the construction of the Nathpa Jhakri Hydro Electric Project. The contract was entered into between the parties at New Delhi but the entire works which were the subject matter of the contract were to be executed at District Shimla in the State of Himachal Pradesh.

Clause XII of the Contract reads as follows:

“(XII) VENUE, APPLICABLE LAW, AND PERSONAL JURISDICTION

In the event that any party deems it necessary to initiate legal action or proceedings to enforce any rights or obligation under this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that any such action shall be initiated as per law for the time being in force in India and within the jurisdiction of the Courts at New Delhi. The Board Members, hereby, consent to the bound by the personal jurisdiction of the court at New Delhi.”.

3.Disputes arose between the parties and the same referred to arbitration. The Arbitral Tribunal passed an award in favour of the respondent-Claimant. The appellant being aggrieved by the said award filed objection in this court. the present appellant initially filed objections to the award in 2002. The appellant averred that it had only received an uncertified copy of the award dated 16.1.2002 on 30.1.2002. Since the objection were not filed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of Arbitral award the appellant filed an application under Section 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter refered to as the Act) praying that the delay in filing the objections may be condoned. This petition was registered as CMP (M) No. 248 of 2002. The respondent filed reply to the application under Section 34(3) of the Act. No objection was raised in this reply that this court had no jurisdiction to entertain the objection. A learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that the objections werein fact pre-mature since the signed copy of the award had not been supplied to the appellant-objector as provided under Section 31(5) of the Act. The Court also directed the Arbitrator to supply a signed copy of the award if approched by one of the parties. This order was not challenged by any party and has attained finality. Thereafter, a signed copy of the award was supplied to the appelalnt objector on 29th April, 2003 and the Objector filed objection on 22nd May, 2003. These objections were registered as Arbitration Case No. 58 of 2003. Notice of this award was issued to the respondent claimant. In response to the notice, reply was filed and in this reply an objection was taken that this Court had no jurisdiction to decide the matter since the parties had by mutual consent agreed to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts at Himachal Pradesh and had furhter mutually agreed that only the Courts at Delhi would deal with any dispute arising between the parteis. In response the appellant filed rejoinder and in this rejoinder the stand of the appellant-objector was that the jurisdiction of the Courts at Himachal had not been ousted and it was also pleaded that even if there is any such ouster clause, the claimant had waived this right by not o