K. Ravichandrabaabu, J.

1. This Application is filed by the Defendants to revoke the leave granted by this Court in Application No. 3075 of 2015 on 28.04.2015. The Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the above said Suit for declaration that the Notice of Arbitration, dated 08.04.2015 is null and void being contrary to Indian law, and for permanent injunction in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants, thereby restraining the Defendants or any other person on its behalf in any manner proceeding or continuing with the Arbitration proceedings initiated by the Defendants, vide Notice of Arbitration, dated 08.04.2015.

2. Since the Defendants are situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court, the Plaintiff filed A. No. 3075 of 2015 for leave of this Court to file the Suit against the Defendants by contending that the cause of action for filing the Suit arose when then Plaintiff and the First Defendant collaborated on the distribution of the First Defendant's products in India and in Nepal, specifically in Chennai, pursuant to the International Distributorship Agreement and Dealer Agreement, both dated 01.12.2010 and the Settlement Agreement, dated 30.03.2013.

3. It is the case of the Plaintiff that substantial part of cause of action arose in Chennai, as all the above said Agreements were executed in Chennai and the payments due to the Plaintiff were credited to the Plaintiff-Company's Bank only in Chennai, including the payments under each of the above Agreements as well as the payments made pursuant to Clauses 2 & 3 of the Settlement Agreement. It is their further case that part of performance of contract took place in Chennai, where the products of the Defendants were distributed to 12 Hospitals in Chennai. It is, thus, contended that only in Chennai, the Plaintiff-Company issued instructions to their Banks to stop RTGS transfer to the Second Defendant-Company, which was the trigger for Arbitration, and therefore, substantial part of cause of action arose in Chennai and hence, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Suit.

4. Based on the above said contentions, this Court, by Order dated 28.04.2015 allowed A. No. 3075 of 2015, granting leave for the Plaintiff to sue against the Defendants. On notice and Interim Injunction having been granted in O.A. No. 495 of 2015, the Defendants have filed this Application seeking for revocation of the above said leave granted by this Court.

5. It is the contention of the Defendants in revocation of Leave Application that the present Suit is not maintainable, as there is valid and binding Arbitration Agreement between the parties to the Suit, namely the Settlement Agreement, dated 30.03.2013. The Defendants have already initiated Arbitration process, which is pending on the file of the ICDR (International Centre for Dispute Resolution), USA. The Settlement Agreement had been executed by all the parties incorporating the Arbitration Clause by reference. Therefore, this Court has to statutorily refer the parties to Arbitration as mandated under Section 45 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This Court does not have "in-personam" jurisdiction over the Defendants to entertain the Suit or to pass an Order of Injunction. The Plaintiff has to seek the relief in terms of the contract. The Arbitration Clauses contained in the Settlement Agreement clearly confer jurisdiction on the ICDR. The Dealer Agreement and the Distributorship Agreement are governed by the laws of Common Wealth of Massachusetts, USA. Therefore, the governing law in the case on hand is clearly supported by Massachusetts Law. The parties to Agreement have expressly and impliedly accepted the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is further stated that the Defendants neither reside nor carry on business within the jurisdiction of this Court. Clause 12 of the Letters Patent empowers this Court to entertain the Suit only when the Defendants at the time of commencement of the Suit, shall