1. Heard Shri Vibhor Vardhan, Advocate assisted by Shri Tungesh Pandey, Dr. Shipra Tripathi, Gayatri Singh, Ajeet Kumar Yadav and Harsh Vardhan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Ashish Kumar Singh, Advocate assisted by Shri Satya Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioners have invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 13.1.2025 passed by Commercial Court No.1, Lucknow in Arbitration Case No.132/2020 whereby an application preferred by the petitioners purporting to be under Order VII R.10 CPC, has been rejected.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a partnership firm was constituted on 15.3.2012 with Anil Mayor, HUF through its Karta Anil Mayor and Ranjan Mittal. The business of the firm was to be conducted under the name and style of 'Mayor Constructions'. The said partnership Deed in Clause 17 contained an Arbitration Clause to the effect that "any dispute between the parties would be resolved through arbitration."

4. It is the case of the petitioners that initially a dispute arose between the partners of the firm and the private respondent No.2 invoked the arbitration clause and in a petition filed under S.11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to "Act of 1996"), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Janardan Sahai (a retired Judge of this Court) was appointed as the sole Arbitrator.

5. It is urged that at the relevant time, the private respondent had also invoked the powers of the Court under S.9 of the Act of 1996, which was filed before the District Judge, Saharanpur bearing Case No.127 of 2014. It is further submitted that while the said application under S.9 of the Act of 1996 remained pending before the District Judge, Saharanpur, in the meantime, the arbitral Tribunal so constituted considered the claims and counter claims of the parties and by means of its award dated 10.8.2016 dismissed both the claims and counter claims. It is further urged that this Award dated 10.8.2016 was not assailed by any of the parties and as such the same attained finality.

6. It is further pointed out that once again certain disputes cropped up and this time too, the private respondent once again invoked the arbitration clause by filing a petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Arbitration application No.122/2017 wherein this Court at Allahabad appointed Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.U.Khan, a Retired Judge of this Court as Arbitrator. The arbitration proceedings before the Tribunal was held by the Arbitral Tribunal at Lucknow and a preliminary award dated 8.4.2020 was passed issuing interim directions. Later a final award on 24.9.2020 was passed.

7. The aforesaid two awards i.e. preliminary and final awards came to be challenged before the Commercial Court - I, at Lucknow by the petitioners. The Commercial Court - I at Lucknow on 2.11.2021 dismissed the application under S.34 of the Act of 1996 against which an appeal was preferred before a Division Bench of this Court in Appeal No.8/2021 (Smt. Mukul Bahl and others v. Ranjan Mittal and another). The Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Jaspreet Singh, J.) was a member vide order dated 18.9.2024 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Commercial Court for deciding the same afresh in light of the applicable law.

8. After the matter was remanded by the Appellate Court, the present petitioners moved an application purporting to be under Order VII R.10 C.P.C raising the contention that the Commercial Court - I at Lucknow did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition under S.34 of the Act of 1996 and the same be placed before the appropriate court having jurisdiction in District Saharanpur.

9. The thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in light of the S.42 of the Act of 1996, the proceedings are to be