4 %09.01.2008 Present: Mr. Gagan Chhabra, Mr. A.M. Tripathi and Mr. Mayank Chawla for the petitioners. Mr. S. Chandra, S. •Advoctwith Mr. R.C. Beri for the respondents. . . . + Arb. P. Nos. 164/2007 to I82I2007 28812007. to 290/2007, 292/2007 to 296/2007. 298/2007, 299/2007, 326/20.07, 327/2007, 329/2007, 492/2007 to 49412007 and OMP Nos. 168/2007 to 186/2007. 207/2007 to 217/2007, 219/2007, 22012007; 222/2007, . 223/20079 225/2007, 226/2007 & 268/2007 to 270I2007, 273/2007, 274/2007, 278/2007, 280/2007 to 283/2007, 285/2007 & 645/2007 to 647/2007 . . . These are batch :matters 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, 1996. . . The petitioners in all these petitions had booked a - . . commercial space with respondent No. 1 in a commercial complex OWJ to be constructed by it at. Murnbai. The petitioners are either NRl 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.co.n.cern.ing the transaction in question. Clause 28 of the main agreement between the parties provides for referenc.e 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 N F --J 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 jUilsdidion ofThCöüt 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 jürisdlction 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, 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 respo.ndent 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