VBC 1 arbap144.10-23.12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2010 M/s.Calcutta Belt Centre. ...Applicant. Vs. Tecon Projects Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent. .... Mr.Bimal Rajasekhyar for the Applicant. None for the Respondent. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. December 23, 2010. P.C. : A purchase order was placed upon the Applicant by the Respondent on 5 August 2008.Clause 17 of the purchase order provides that disputes would be resolved through an arbitrator.The claim of the Applicant is in respect of a portion of the consideration payable for the goods sold, supplied and delivered. The Applicant invoked arbitration by its letter dated 16 May 2008 to which there was no reply. In para 12 of the Application, it has been averred that the purchase order was placed upon the Applicant in Mumbai and the goods were supplied from Mumbai. Part payment was received by the Applicant in Mumbai and the balance was payable at Mumbai. Hence, the cause of action arose in VBC 2 arbap144.10-23.12 Mumbai and this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain these proceedings. On this ground, it has been submitted that though clause 18 of the agreement provides that the Courts situated at New Delhi would have jurisdiction, there is no territorial nexus with New Delhi since the entire cause of action has arisen in Mumbai. 2. The Respondent has been served and an affidavit of service has been filed. 3. In these circumstances, the Arbitration Application is disposed of by appointing Shri Shyam Mehta, Advocate, as sole arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. The Prothonotary and Senior Master shall forthwith communicate a copy of this order to the sole arbitrator together with a memorandum of address of parties. ( Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)