M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. In the instant application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the petitioner has prayed for appointment of a co-arbitrator for entering into the reference and adjudication of dispute and differences.

2. Petitioner was awarded some work order videf work No. 281 dated 13.6.1996 and 280 dated 6.12.1997 by the respondent for execution of certain work for modernization of SAIL/Bokaro Steel Plant at Bokaro, Jharkhand.

3. Petitioners case is that after completing the work successfully bills were submitted but the respondent made part payment to the petitioner. The total amount of bill to the work executed is Rs. 9,46,555.93/-. Petitioner has sent several letters to the respondent but none of the letters have been responded. Petitioner, therefore, invoked arbitration clause and referred the matter to arbitration in terms of Clause 26 of the agreement appointing Sri S.P. Tiwary, Arbitrator on behalf of the petitioner vide letter dated 8.11.2002. Petitioner said to have again served a letter dated 15.2.2003 for appointment of an arbitrator but could not get any response. Hence, this petition.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent, it is stated that the instant application for appointment of an arbitrator is not maintainable. Besides controverting the facts made in the petition, it is stated that Clause 28 of the general condition of contract provides that the sub-contract dated 13.6.1996 entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent shall be deemed to have been entered in the city of Bangalore and, therefore, Bangalore Court has only jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 11(6) of the Act.

5. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the agreement between the parties was entered into at Bokaro and as per clause 26 of the agreement only this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Learned counsel referred Section 42 of the said Act, and submitted that the petition filed in this Court is maintainable. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hakam Singh v. Gammon (India) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 740.

6. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that although the contract was signed at Ranchi but the respondent resides in Bangalore and, therefore, only that Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition. Learned counsel submitted that there is a specific stipulation in the agreement that it shall be deemed to have been executed at Bangalore and, therefore, only the High Court which falls within the jurisdiction of Bangalore shall have the jurisdiction. Learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd and Anr. v. A.P. Agencies, Salem AIR 1989 SC 1239, in the case of State of Orissa and Ors. v. Gokulananda Jena, 2003 (3) JCR 191 (SC) : (2003) 6 SCC 465, in the case of Firm Ashok Traders and Anr. v. Gurumukh Das Saluja and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 155 arid in the case of Sharda Construction v. The State of Jharkhand and Ors., 2005 (1) JLJR 162 : 2004 (4) JCR 786 (Jhr).

7. Before adverting the rival contention of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I would like to refer clause 26 of the agreement which reads as under :

"26.0 ARBITRATION

It at any time any question, dispute or difference whatever shall arises between the Company and the Sub-Contractor upon, or in relation to or in connection with the sub-contract which cannot be amicably settled, either party may give to other notice in writing of the existence of such question, dispute or difference, and the same shall be referred to the adjudication of two arbitrators, one to be nominated by the Company and the other to be nominated by the Sub-Contractor, or in the case of the said arbitrators not agreeing then to the adjudication of an umpire to be appoin