%09.01.2008 Present: Mr. Gagan Chhabra, Mr. A.M. Tripathi and Mr. Mayank Chawla for the petitioners. . Mr. S. Chandra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. R.C. Beri for the respondents. + Arb, P, Nos. 164/2007 to 182/2007. 288/2007 to 290/2007. 292/2007 to 296/2007. 298/2007, 299/2007. 301/2007. 303/2007. 308/2007. 310/2007 to 313/2007. 315/2007, 316/2007. 318/2007 & 326/2007 to 323/2007. 326/2007 . 327/2007. 329/2007. 492/2007 tO 494/2007 and OMP Nos. 168/2007 to 186/2007. 207/2007 to 217/2007. 219/2007. 220/2007. 222/2007, 223/2007, 225/2007. 226/2007 & 268/2007 to 270/2007. 273/2007. 274/2007. 278/2007. 280/2007 to 283/2007. 285/2007 & 645/2007 to 647/2007 These are batch nnatters and have been taken up for hearing together. There are two sets of petitions, one is under Section 11 and the other is under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation . •^ ' ' '• . . , • Act ive. . " " """ ——7 The petitioners in all these petitions had booked a commercial space with respondent No. 1 in a commercial complex to be constructed by It at Mumbai. The petitioners are either NRIs or are residents of Delhi. The builder agreement executed between the parties contains a Clause being Clause 37 of Schedule II (annexed with the main agreement) whereby the parties had agreed that the Bombay High Court and courts subordinate to it alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all matters arising out of/ touching and/or concerning the transaction in question. Clause 28 of the main agreement between the parties provides for reference Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified ro of dispute to the sole Arbitrator.As per agreement between the parties, the venue of the arbitration was agreed to be at New Delhi. The law is well settled that the venue of arbitration agreed by the parties shall not decide the jurisdictionofThe"Court to adjudicate the dispute that may arise between them under the agreement. It is admitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the property to be constructed by respondent No. 1 is situated in Mumbai. It is a matter of record that the parties by their agreement have agreed to submit their dispute only to the jurisdiction of Bombay High Court and to no other court. This obviously bars the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain these petitions. Mr. Chhabra appearing on behalf of the petitioners has . very fairly conceded to this legal position. All these petitions are, . « - . •' • • • V therefore, dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of this-Court - ' to entertain and try the said petitions. , Before parting with this order, it may be noted that when on 04.04.2007 the matter, being OMP No. 168/2007 titled M/s Convenience Enterprises Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Ozo Media Estate Ltd. and Another, was taken up for admission hearing Mr. Ashok Mahendru, Director of the respondent companies was present before the Court and he had made a statement before the Court on that day that the respondents shall not sell, alienate or create any third party interest in respect of the suit property/portion of the land measuring 2128 sq. mtrs. with structures standing thereon. This statement made by Mr. MahendriJ was accepted by the Court on that day. In view of the stateme^nt of MrT Mahendr^j, this Court vide j its interim order passed on 04.04.2007 had third party interest in respect Of commercial office space Nos. 2114, 2115/2116, 2117 &2118 measuring 2250 sq. fts on the 21^ Floor of the mUlti-storeyed building constructed on the property bearing No. 844/1-14, Shah Industrial Estate, Veiera Desai Road, Andheri (West), jMumbai; Similar Orders: were passed in other connected caseSi of the petitioners as well. Now since this Court -hasfound thattijis Courtwould have no territorialjurisdictionoyer the subject flatter in the present petitions, the interim orders passed by this Court are hereby vacated. However, this Court is of should abide byjthe statement given by their DirectorMr. Akshok Maheridru tO ,th6 Court on 04.04.2007 in OMP No. 168/2007 for a JANVARY OB, 2Q08 a"- and obtain appropriate relief therefrom as per law/ , In view of jthe above, all these petitions stand disposed of ••aGGprdJngiy'/v:S.;;:| S.N.AGGARWAL, j