M.Y. Eqbal, J.

1. In the instant petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 the petitioner has prayed for appointment of Arbitrator in relation to disputes and differences which have arisen between the petitioner and the respondents in connection with the contract for transportation of coal in various collieries.

2. The petitioner carried out the work of transportation of coal. It has executed the work of transportation of coal for the collieries of Tapin North and Tapin South, Patratu Thermal Power Station, Lalpania, Bokaro pursuant to the letter of intent issued on behalf of Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited, (in short TVNL), Patna. In course of time disputes and differences arose on account of non-settlement of various claims. The petitioner said to have made several representations to the various authorities of the respondents for settlement of claim and lastly by a notice dated 21.3.2003 requested for reference of the disputes and differences to Arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause in the agreement. When the request of the petitioner was not responded, the instant petition has been filed.

3. The respondent-TVNL, Jharkhand besides denying the existence of disputes and differences, has stated in its counter affidavit that the instant application is not maintainable.

4. The respondent-TVNL, Patna, in their counter affidavit have raised objection with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition. According to the respondent Section 10 of the Companies Act, bars any High Court other the High Court having territorial jurisdiction over the registered office of the Company from entertaining any case concerning their companies i.e. TVNL.

5. I have heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Ltd. Patna and Mr. Delip Jerath, learned counsel for the Tenughat Vidyut Nigam Limited, Ranchi.

6. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel firstly contended that issue with regard to territorial jurisdiction 11 of the Honble Chief Justice or his delegate to entertain an application under Section of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, must be raised before and decided by an Arbitral Tribunal. Learned counsel submitted that Section 16 of the said Act, provides for power of the Arbitrator to rule on his own jurisdiction. Such objection to jurisdiction includes an objection on the ground of the Arbitral Tribunal having been improperly constituted. In this connection learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Konkan Railway Corporation Limited and Anr. v. Rani Construction Pvt. Limited, (2002) 2 SCC 388 and also in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Indian Council of Arbitration, 2003 (3) JCR 170 (SC) : AIR 2003 SC 3011. In the alternative, learned counsel submitted that objection with regard to jurisdiction of this Court is not tenable as the petitioner is invoking jurisdiction of this Court as per Section 11(12)(b) read with Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, which depends upon the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Courts at Bokaro. Even if the Honble Chief Justice of the Patna High Court may have also territorial jurisdiction in addition to the Honble Chief Justice of this Court then in such situation the application filed here is maintainable in view of Section 11(11) of the said Act.

7. Mr. A. Allam, learned counsel for the T.V.N.L. Patna on the other hand firstly submitted that disputes and differences can not be referred to Arbitration for the reason that in terms of the agreement no extra claim was to be entertained. Learned counsel further submitted that all correspondences were made by the petitioner with the registered office of T.V.N.L. and the notice for appointment of Arbitrator was made before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, TVNL Patna, therefore, instant application before the Chief Justice, Jharkhand High Court is not maintainable. Learned counsel