RAM RATNA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD Vs. JAIN HOUSING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard through video conferencing.

(2.) The Application is under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. There is a Work Order dated 1st June 2014. A copy is annexed at page 28. This contains an arbitration clause which says that all disputes are to be referred to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. The next clause says that the contract is deemed to have been made at Mumbai and that only Courts in Mumbai will have any jurisdiction to entertain and try any dispute.

(3.) Accordingly, Mr Bagla submits that the Application is correctly filed in this Court especially in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt Ltd v Datawind Innovations Pvt Ltd & Ors.(2017) 7 SCC 678. That is undoubtedly the correct position in law. The submission in the Counter Affidavit that this Court has no jurisdiction is based on an incorrect reading of the law as it pertains to law governing such jurisdictional issue in the field of arbitration law.