JUDGMENT : 

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J.

1. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside the order dated 06.08.2022 (Annexure P-15) passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial), Rewari in arbitration petition No.8 of 2021, titled 'Parsvnath Developers Ltd. versus Brig. Devender Singh and others'.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The petitioner and the respondents entered into a collaboration agreement vide Annexure P-2 dated 27.10.2005 and in the aforesaid collaboration agreement, there is an arbitration clause i.e Clause 23 and also a clause pertaining to jurisdiction i.e. Clause 24. The aforesaid Clauses 23 and 24 are reproduced as under:-

“23. Arbitration

23.1 Disputes, if any, which may arise between the parties with respect to this Agreement, or interpretation of terms, or its performance or execution unless resolved mutually, shall be referred to Arbitration under the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The venue of arbitration shall be New Delhi.

24. Jurisdiction

24.1 This Agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Courts at Rewari and High Court at Chandigarh.”

(emphasis supplied)

3. In the aforesaid arbitration clause 23, it has been clearly provided that the venue of arbitration shall be New Delhi and in a separate clause i.e. Clause 24 as reproduced above, it has been provided that the agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Courts at Rewari and the High Court at Chandigarh. In this way, both venue as well as the jurisdiction of the Courts have been specifically provided in the aforesaid two clauses.

4. A dispute arose between the parties and the respondents filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') at Rewari on 14.05.2015, which was decided on 04.11.2015 vide Annexure P-5. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application under Section 11 of the Act before this Court in arbitration case No. 176 of 2015, which was decided on 05.02.2016 vide Annexure P-7, whereby a Coordinate Bench of this Court appointed a former Chief Justice of India as a Sole Arbitrator. Thereafter, learned Sole Arbitrator initiated the arbitral proceedings and during the pendency of the proceedings before the Sole Arbitrator since the statutory period had expired, the respondents filed an application under Section 29-A of the Act before this Court and vide order dated 29.09.2017 (Annexure P-8), an extension was granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on the basis of consent of both the parties. Thereafter, the arbitral proceedings could not be concluded within the aforesaid extended period of time and another application for further extension was filed by the respondents before this Court which was withdrawn vide order dated 26.10.2018 (Annexure P-9) with liberty to take such appropriate remedy as may be available in law. Both the aforesaid orders i.e. Annexure P-8 and Annexure P-9 are reproduced as under:-

“ Annexure P-8

Present:- Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Advocate, for the applicants-petitioners.

Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent.

* * * *

The application is allowed as prayed for.

By consent, the time to make the award is extended upto and including 11.03.2018.”

“Annexure P-9

Present: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Advocate, for the applicants.

* * * *

After the matter was heard at some length, learned counsel for the applicants made a request to permit withdrawal of this application with liberty to take such appropriate remedy as may be available in law.

Prayer made is allowed.

Application stands dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.”

5. Thereafter, respondents filed another application under Section 29-A of the Act before Delhi High Court, which was the third application filed by them and vide order 18.12.2018 (Annexure P-10), the same was allowed and the time for concluding the arbitral proceedings was extended. In the aforesaid application which was so filed