CS 46 of 2002. 09.9.2009 Present: Mr. Vivek Thakur, counsel for the plaintiff. Mr. Bimal Gupta, counsel for the defendant. It is undisputed before me that the fate of this case is solely dependent upon the decision of this Court in LPA 3 of 2005, titled Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. v. M/S Continental Foundation Joint Venture. While disposing of the LPA, this Court held: “ Keeping in view the entire discussion, we answer the questions framed above as follows: Q.No. 1 The parties had elected to retain the jurisdiction only of the Courts at Delhi and therefore had impliedly ousted the jurisdiction of the Courts at Shimla. Q.No. 2 The respondent has waived the right available to it under the ouster clause by not taking the objection of jurisdiction in the earlier proceedings in CMP(M) No. 248 of 2003. Q.No. 3 The provisions of Section 42 of the Act are applicable in the present case and since the first proceedings i.e. CMP(M) No. 248 of 2003 arising out of the arbitration agreement were filed in this -2- Court it is this Court alone which will have jurisdiction to entertain, adjudicate and decide all subsequent applications arising out of the arbitration agreement or the arbitral proceedings.” Parties are ad idem that they had agreed to retain the jurisdiction of the Courts at Delhi and, therefore, had implied ousted the jurisdiction of the Courts at Shimla, which fact is not disputed by both the parties. In this view of the matter, the plaint along with the record is ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction, keeping in view the decision in LPA 3 of 2005, decided on 27th August, 2008, (supra). Needless to say that the plaintiff will be entitled to the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. This suit stands disposed of. All pending applications shall stand disposed of. September 9, 2009 (PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.