pvr 1 app1-2-3-4-47-06 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.4 OF 2006 Hathway Cable & Datacom Pvt.Ltd. ...Applicant vs. B.V.Rama Narsimha Reddy. ...Respondent --- Ms.Dipti Panda i/b. Thakore Jariwala & Co., for Applicant. Respondent in person present. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED: 31st January, 2011 P.C.: 1. This application has been taken out under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 for appointment of an Arbitrator. The dispute between the parties relates to the agreement between the parties dated 4.9.2001. The application is opposed by the Respondent. The opposition is on the ground that no part of cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of pvr 2 app1-2-3-4-47-06 this Court. Perusal of the application shows that in the application except relying on clause 14 of the Agreement, no averments have been made to show as to how this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application. 2. In the reply, the Respondent states that the agreement was signed at Hyderabad. The Respondent is carrying on his business at Hyderabad. He has also filed civil suit at Hyderabad in relation to the dispute arising out of the same agreement, and therefore, according to him, this Court does not have jurisdiction. In the rejoinder that have been filed on behalf of the applicant, for the first time, it is claimed that the applicant signed the agreement at Bombay and on the stamp paper on which the agreement was written was also of Bombay. However no document is produced which can show that though the Respondent has signed the agreement at Hyderabad, it was signed by the applicant at Bombay. We find that thus, there is no material produced on pvr 3 app1-2-3-4-47-06 record by the applicant which will establish that because the agreement was signed by the applicant at Bombay, this Court will have jurisdiction. An application under Section 11 of the Act in terms of the provisions of sub-section 12 of Section 11 can be made before the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court within whose local limits the principal Civil Court referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 is situate. The provisions of Section 2(1)(e) shows that that section defines the term  Court in the following terms:- 2(1)(e) Court means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any Civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal Civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes; pvr 4 app1-2-3-4-47-06 Perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that if for saying that the Chief Justice of this Court will have jurisdiction to appoint the Arbitrator, the Applicant will have to show that this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain a Civil suit if it had been filed on the same cause of action, and therefore, it was for the applicant to make out a case in the application that had a Civil suit been filed, this Court will have jurisdiction to entertain that civil suit. The applicant does not produce any material to establish this position. In our opinion, therefore, it cannot be said on the basis of the material produced before us that the Chief Justice of this Court can entertain the application. The application is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (K.K.TATED,J.)