skt/- arbpl.1060.09.sxw ..1.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1060 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Manisha Chetan Shah ...Respondent. ..... Mr.Chinmay Gupte i/by Mohit Gadkari & Co. for the petitioner. Mr.Khayam Shaikh for the respondent. ..... CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 8th JANUARY, 2010. P.C.- 1. Considering the clause nos. 11.16 and 11.17 of Arbitration Agreement, clause No.11.17 reads as under : “11.17 In the event that the claim or dispute does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal established under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, for the purposes of arbitration mentioned in clause [10.16], the Court in Chennai shall, subject to the provisions of law, have exclusive jurisdiction.” this Court has no jurisdiction, as agreed under the Arbitration Agreement about jurisdiction. Such arbitration clause needs to be skt/- arbpl.1060.09.sxw ..2.. respected as the parties knowingly signed this commercial document and therefore, are bound by the same. 2. Following the Apex Court in .............................. I have already taken such view also that this Court has no jurisdiction and as averments made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner for liberty to the petitioner to apply for appropriate relief before the appropriate Court/Forum, the petition is disposed of as without jurisdiction. The interim order granted on 13th November 2009 also stand vacated. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)