IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO.426 OF 2024 Keller Ground Engineering India Private Limited ...Petitioner Versus Archon Powerinfra India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents WITH COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.227 OF 2024 Keller Ground Engineering India Private Limited ...Petitioner Versus Archon Powerinfra India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Shyam Kapadia a/w. Ravitej Chilumuri, Aishwarya Singh, Kanika Sharma i/b. Khaitan & Co., Advocate for Petitioner.

Mr. Abhileen Chaturvedi a/w. Mr. Mohit Prabhu, Mr. Sayyad Saqib Ali & Mr. Sparsh Khosia i/b. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Mahalakshmi Ganapathy a/w. Rahul Dhawan, Tanmay Bhave & Apoorv Bansal, Advocates for Respondent No.2.

CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

DATE : JANUARY 23, 2025 Digitally signed AARTI b G y A J A A A N R A T N I GAJANAN PALKAR PALKAR Date:

2025.01.28 ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per Somasekhar Sundaresan J):

The Petitions:

1. Commercial Arbitration Petition No.426 of 2024 (“Section 9 Petition”) is filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) seeking various interlocutory reliefs in connection with disputes and differences said to have arisen between Keller Ground Engineering India Private Limited, the Petitioner (“Keller”) on the one hand, and Arcon Powerinfra India Pvt. Ltd., Respondent No.1 and Chhabra’s Associates, Respondent No. 2 (“Contesting Respondents”).

2. Indian Oil Corporation Limited (“Indian Oil”) has been added as Respondent No.3 in the Section 9 Petition since the interlocutory relief to preserve the subject property underlying the arbitration proceedings, required issuance of directions to Indian Oil.

3. Commercial Arbitration Application No.227 of 2024 (“Section 11 Petition”) seeks reference of disputes and differences between Keller and the Contesting Respondents to an arbitral tribunal, in accordance with the arbitration agreement between the parties, in exercise of powers under Section 11 of the Act.

Factual Matrix – Two Work Orders:

4. The facts relating to the existence of the arbitration agreement in this case are a bit piquant. Indian Oil gave a work order to Respondent No. 1, and Respondent No. 1 sub-contracted it with Keller. Thereafter, the parties agreed that Respondent No. 1 would commission the work to Respondent No. 2, which would then sub-contract it to Keller – all for the very same work.

5. Respondent No. 2 and Keller executed a Work Order dated October 30, 2019, which is contained at Page No.102 of the Section 11 Petition. The arbitration agreement in that Work Order is contained at Page No.109 of the Section 11 Petition. Another Work Order pertaining to the very same work and activity was subsequently executed between Respondent No. 1 and Keller on November 15, 2019. The arbitration agreement in that Work Order is contained at Page 160 of the Section

11 Petition.

6. In the interest of brevity, the arbitration agreement contained in each Work Order is not extracted here. Suffice it to say that Mumbai is stated to be the agreed venue of arbitration.

Respondents’ Objections – Territorial Jurisdiction:

7. The reference to Mumbai, in fact, lies at the heart of dealing with the issue raised by the contesting Respondents. To begin with, Mr. Abhileen Chaturvedi, Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 submits that nothing in the activity envisaged in the Work Orders has been carried out in the State of Maharashtra. Merely because the arbitration clause refers to Mumbai as the venue of arbitration, he would submit, it would not follow that this Court has jurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 11 of the Act. Learned Counsel also submits that Respondent No.1 is not located in Mumbai and therefore, no part of the cause of action claimed against this Contesting Respondent has arisen in Mumbai. Consequently, he submits, this Court will not have jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act.

8. Ms. Mahalakshmi Gan