0) %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 & 320/2007 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 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 ail these petitions had booked a commercialspace with respondentNo. 1 In a commercialcomplex to be constructedby it at Mumbai. The petitionersare either NRIs orare residentsof Delhi.The builderagreementexecutedbetween 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 subordinateto it alone shall have exclusivejurisdictionin all mattersarisingout of/ touchingand/orconcerningthe transactionin question.Clause28 ofthe main agreement betweenthe partiesprovidesfor 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 to 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 arbitrationagreed by the parties shall not decide the jurisdictiorrof^he Court to adjudicate the dispute that may arise between them under the agreement. It is admitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionersthat the propertyto be constructedby respondent No. 1 is situatedin Mumbai. It is a matterof recordthatthe parties by theiragreementhave agreedto submittheirdisputeonlyto the jurisdictionof Bombay High Court and to no other court. This obviously bars the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain these petitions.Mr. Chhabra appearingon behalfof the petitionershas very fairly concededto this legal position.All these petitionsare, therefore,dismissedfor want of territorialjurisdictionof this Court to entertain and try the said petitions. Before partingwith this order, it may be noted that when on 04.04.2007 the matter, being OMP No. 168/2007 titled M/s ConvenienceEnterprisesPvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Ozo Media Estate Ltd. and Another, was taken up for admission hearing Mr. Ashok Mahendrtj. Director of the respondent companies was present beforethe Court and he had madeastatementbeforethe Court on that day thatthe respondentsshaii not sell, alienateor create any third party interestin respectof the suit property/portionof the land measuring 2128 sq. mtrs. with structures standing W thereon. This statement made by Mr. Mahendru was accepted by the Court on that day. In view of the statement of Mr. Mahendru, this Court vide its interim order passed on 04.04.2007 had restrainedthe respondentsfrom selling,alienatingor creatingany third party interest in respect of commercial office space Nos. 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117 &2118 measuring2250 sq. fts on the 2r^ Floor of the multi-storeyedbuilding constructedon the property bearing No. 844/1-14, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai. Similar orders were passed in other connected cases of the petitioners as well. Now since this Court has found that this Courtwould have no territorialjurisdictionover the subject matter in the present petitions, the interim orders passed by this Courtare herebyvacated.However,this Court is of the view that the interestof justicedemand that the respondents should abide by the statementgiven by their Director Mr. Ashok Mahendruto the Court on 04.04.2007in OMR No. 168/2007for a periodof 8weeksfrom todayto enablethe petitionersto approach the Court of competentjurisdictionand obtain appropriaterelief therefrom as per law. In view of the above, all these petitionsstand disposed of accordingly. All the pendinglAs alsostand disposedof. JANUARY09, 2008 S-N^^E^VAL,;