:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION ARBITRATION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 281 OF PETITION NO. 281 OF PETITION NO. 281 OF 2001 2001 2001 Vijay Construction. ...Petitioner. V/s. Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. ...Respondents. Mr. Chirag Balsara i/b. Negandhi Shah & Himayatullah for the Petitioner. Ms. Kiran Bagalia a/w. Asha Bhambwani for the Respondents. ..... CORAM CORAM CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. 04TH 04TH 04TH MARCH 2009. MARCH 2009. MARCH 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . This is a Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to challenge an Award which has been made by the Arbitrator at Margao - Goa on 29th November 2000. 2. Although, the Petition was admitted by this Court and listed for final hearing, Ms. Bagalia, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents states that at no stage have the Respondents waived the objection to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. She invites my attention to Section 2(e) of the Act and contends that the definition of the term "Court" appearing therein is clear. She submits that it is only that Court which has jurisdiction to decide the questions which are subject :2: matter of the Arbitration, if the same had been subject matter of a Suit, which has to be approached by parties desirous of challenging an Arbitration Award. It is contended that the works have to be carried out on the stretch of Konkan Railway in Goa. She submits that the contract has been signed and executed in Goa. The Venue of arbitration was at Goa. In these circumstances, this Court would have no jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition and the Petition must be returned to the Petitioner’s Advocate for presentation to a Competent Court in Goa. 3. Mr. Balsara, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners on the other hand contends that the Petition has been admitted and is listed for hearing and final disposal. Secondly, according to him, the contract was executed at Belapur. Thirdly, the Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. has an Office or an establishment in Mumbai. In these circumstances, this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain and try this Petition. 4. I have perused the Petition and the Award. I have also perused a copy of the contract executed by parties. I have also perused Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. From a perusal of the entire material, it is apparent that this is a Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliations Act, 1996. Even the Award says that parties had agreed to submit to :3: the jurisdiction of the arbitrators exercising authority and power under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In these circumstances, it is too late in the day to urge that the Old Act would apply. Secondly, it is not disputed before me that the contract was executed in Goa. The Venue of the Arbitral Proceedings was in Margao - Goa. In these circumstance, Section 2(e) of the 1996 Act is attracted. This Court does not have jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration. For all these reasons, the preliminary objection of jurisdiction of this Court must be upheld. It is accordingly, upheld. 5. Without going into the merits of the controversy and while upholding the preliminary objection, it is directed that the Petition be returned to the Petitioner’s Advocate for presentation to a Competent Court in Goa. 6. The question remains as to whether the Petitioner can urge that this Petition is within limitation and therefore, not barred by time. Ms. Bagalia states that this Court having held that it has no jurisdiction should not express any opinion in so far as the aspect of limitation including applicability of Section 14(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963. There is much substance in this contention. I have no doubt in my mind that if the Petitioners, after presentation of this Petition to the Competent Court in Goa, apply for giving them benefit of :4: the statutory provision so as to exclude the period of pendency of the Petition in this Court, then, that Court will pass appropriate orders after hearing both sides. All contentions on limitation and merits are kept open. However, it is clarified that the Respondents will not be permitted to raise the contention with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court in Goa. In other words, the Respondent cannot urge that the Court at Goa has no jurisdiction to entertain this Petition. (S.C. (S.C. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.) DHARMADHIKARI,J.)