Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—The four petitioners seek reference of their dispute with the three respondents to the sole Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as an “Act”) in view of arbitration agreement contained in the deed of agreement dated 16.6.2007 entered into between the parties.

2. The company M/s. Bajaj Carpet Industries Limited having its registered office in Amritsar, Punjab and a manufacturing unit in Greater NOIDA and one in Pune is dealing in manufacturing and supply of carpets. The respondents were the shareholders and the directors of the said company. They entered into an agreement dated 16th June 2007 with the petitioners whereunder they agreed to retire as directors and to transfer their rights as shareholders in the above company in favour of the petitioners with the understanding that the petitioners henceforth would take over as shareholders/directors and management control of the company.

3. The aforesaid agreement inter alia provided:

(i) that the respondents would not directly or indirectly compete with the petitioners by setting up similar industry;

(ii) that the responsibility of satisfying Income Tax, Wealth Tax, Excise and Labour dues shall be upon the petitioners. However, the hidden or other liability in relation to the above upto the period 30th September 2006 shall be the responsibility of the respondents;

(iii) that any dispute with regard to terms of the agreement will be referred to the arbitrator to be appointed as per the Act and the decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties.

4. The petitioners contend that the respondents have breached the conditions No. 7 and 9 of the above agreement by setting up a similar industry in the neighbourhood and have also not cleared the liability in respect of the certain dues as enumerated in clause 9 of the agreement and as such a bona fide dispute in relation to the above agreement had arisen between the two sets of parties. The said dispute is referable to the arbitration but the respondents have ignored the notice of the petitioners dated 4.6.2011 wherein the petitioners not only demanded the settlement of the dispute and its reference to the Arbitrator but also suggested a name for appointment of an Arbitrator.

5. All the three respondents jointly filed short counter-affidavit dated 13th March 2012 contending that the petition seeking appointment of an Arbitrator is not maintainable before this Court in view of Section 10 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1956 as the registered office of the company is situate in Amritsar, and the cause of action for the dispute seeking appointment of Arbitrator had arisen only at Delhi.

6. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 filed an independent counter-affidavit dated 4th April 2012 reiterating the two grounds disputing the jurisdiction of this Court and accepting that the agreement was executed at New Delhi but contending that there is no breach of condition No. 7 of the agreement. The petition seeking appointment of Arbitrator is also not maintainable as it has not been filed on behalf of the company.

7. A separate counter-affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 dated 12.8.2012 disputing the maintainability of the petition and that the agreement does not bear their signatures.

8. The petitioners have filed rejoinder-affidavit to the above three counter-affidavits.

9. Apart from the above pleadings of the parties, the respondents have filed a supplementary-affidavit sworn on 13th March 2013 contending that paragraphs No. 7 and 8 of the agreement specifically mention that the arbitration proceedings will be held at Delhi. Therefore, the Delhi Court alone would have jurisdiction over the matter.

10. In response to the said supplementary-affidavit, a supplementary rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioners.

11. I have heard Sri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vijay Prakash learned co