Original jurisdiction of High Court determined by clause 12.

The applicant in Diary No.39221 of 2000 is M/s.Pondicherry Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. and the applicant in Diary No.39222 of 2000 is M/s.Silicate India Limited. It is stated that both the applicants are sister concerns.

2. The applicant in Diary No.39221 of 2000 namely M/s.Pondicherry Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., has entered into an agreement dated 16.11.1993 and the applicant in Diary No.39222 of 2000 namely M/s.Silicates India Limited entered into an agreement dated 21.7.1994 with M/s.Gas Authority of India Limited, the first respondent herein. Art.13 of the said agreements are pertaining to arbitration.

3. Dispute arose between the parties was referred to arbitral tribunal. On 18.11.1999, the arbitral tribunal passed two separate awards. It is alleged by both the petitioner that they have filed necessary petition under Sec.33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the tribunal for reconsideration of the award. Inspite of repeated reminders no order has been passed by the arbitral tribunal on the petitions. On 5.12.2000 the respondent have sent a letter demanding the award amount from the applicants herein. Hence, the applicants have filed these applications under Sec.9 of the Act before this Court. The Registry has returned both the applications which are posted before this Court to decide whether this Court has territorial jurisdiction or not.

4. The respondents have filed their reply affidavit as well as counter affidavit stating that this Court is not having territorial jurisdiction.

5. The learned counsel for the applicants Mr.H.Nazirudeen argued that both the applicants are having their administrative office at No.81, Avadi Road,Kilpauk, Chennai-10 and the respondents are also having their branch office at Chennai and as such under explanation to Sec.20 of C.P.C. and Sec.2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the said applications are filed and this Court is vested with the territorial jurisdiction to entertain them. This contention was opposed by Mr.V.Kathiravan, the learned counsel for the respondents.

6. It is admitted by both the sides that the agreements were executed at New Delhi and the 1st respondent is having its registered office at New Delhi and arbitration proceedings held at New Delhi. After return of the case bundle by the registry, the applicant has taken a stand that both the respondents are having their branch office at Madras within the jurisdiction of this Court, which was not disputed by the respondents, hence this Court proceeded on that basis.

7. Theapplicant has relied upon the provisions of Sec.2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as well as Sec.20 of C.P.C. Sec.2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act contemplates thus:

“Court” means the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration, if the same had been the subject matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principle Civil Court or any Court of Small Causes”.

Sec.2(e) contemplates that Court means principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district and includes the High Court in relation to ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of arbitration, if the same had been the subject matter of the suit. The phrase civil Court having jurisdiction to decide in Sec.2(e) refer to a Court having jurisdiction under having jurisdiction to decide in Sec.2(e) refer to a Court having jurisdiction under Sec.20 of C.P.C.

Sec.20 of C.P.C. runs thus:

“Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction-

(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or ca