# M/S Ankur Steel Corporation v. M/S Ashoka Mercantile Limited - **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 258 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-04-01 - **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-ankur-steel-corporation-v-m-s-ashoka-mercantile-limited-43576 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote The petitioner has applied under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arising between the parties as a consequence of the agreement dated 12th August, 2010. The court held that this petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply before the appropriate Court. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: N.A ## Text 258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 16. Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to interfere. The petition filed at the behest of a complainant being not maintainable is, accordingly, dismissed. 17. No order as to costs. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J. Arbitration And Concili. Appl.U/S 11(4) No.- 43 Of 2016 M/S Ankur Steel Corporation ...Applicant Versus M/S Ashoka Mercantile Limited ...Respondent Counsel for the Applicant: Krishna Mohan Garg Counsel for the Respondent: N.A The petitioner has applied under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arising between the parties as a consequence of the agreement dated 12th August, 2010. The court held that this petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply before the appropriate Court. Held: Para- Case Law discussed: N.A (Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.) 1. Heard Sri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has applied under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute arising between the parties as a consequence of the agreement dated 12th August, 2010. 4 All. M/S Ankur Steel Corporation Vs Ashoka Marcantile Limited 259 3. The said agreement in clause 23 contains an arbitration agreement and at the same time provides that the Courts at Delhi shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters arising out of the agreement. 4. Sri K.M. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the cause of action for seeking appointment of an Arbitrator arose in State of U.P. at Modi Nagar the Hon'ble Chief Justice or his designate at the Allahabad High Court have the jurisdiction for the appointment of Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 5. The Code of Civil Procedure vide Sections 15 to 20 provides for the place of suing. The said provisions in short, lay down that the suits shall be instituted where the subject matter is situate or where the defendant resides or the cause of action arises. 6. In the instant case, the cause of action may have wholly or partly arisen within the State of U.P. but since the defendant to the proceedings as per the agreement dated 12th August, 2010 which has been annexed as Annexure - 1 to the petition, reveals that the defendant is resident of Delhi as is also evident from its address as mentioned in the petition, on the analogy of Section 20 C.P.C., the suit or any proceeding against it irrespective of place of cause of action and the situation of the subject matter would also be at the place where the defendant resides i.e. Delhi. 7. The parties to the agreement, however, vide clause 23 of the agreement have agreed that the courts at Delhi alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all matters arising out of the agreement. In view of this specific clause of the agreement, the parties have agreed to oust the jurisdiction of the Courts of U.P. and have confined the same to Delhi alone. Accordingly, the Courts in U.P., even the Chief Justice or his designate of the Allahabad High Court has no jurisdiction to take up any matter arising out of the agreement between the parties. 8. In such a situation the only course available to the petitioner is to go before the Hon'ble Chief Justice or his designate at the Delhi High Court. This petition is not maintainable. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to apply before the appropriate Court. --------- APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.03.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Second Appeal Defective No.- 72 Of 2016 Dinesh Chandra Dubey ...Appellant Versus Kripa Shankar Dubey & Ors. ...Respondents