Kambli 1 Arapp50.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.50 OF 2011 ... Antelec Limited ...Applicant v/s. M/s.Elpro Estates Limited ...Respondent ... Mr.Gaurav Joshi with Mr.Avinash Joshi i/b Mulla & Mulla & CB & C. for the Applicant. Mr,S.S.Purohit with Mr.Sudhakara i/b Khaitan & co. for the Respondent. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 17th June, 2011 P.C.: 1. The Petitioner relying on the tender document claims that there is an arbitration clause. There is no dispute that the tender was issued by a company by name M/s.Elpro International- Commercial Division and the work order has been issued by the Respondent-company. It was contended, firstly that there is no Kambli 2 Arapp50.11 concluded contract between the parties. Secondly it was contended on behalf of the Respondent that the tender document was issued by Elpro International-Commercial Division, whereas the work order has been issued by M/s.Elpro Estate Limited, and therefore there is no arbitration clause between the parties. Thirdly, it was submitted that though the work order has been issued, there is no concluded contract between parties, because formal agreement has not been executed. Fourth objection was there is a clause in the work order that only courts in Mumbai will have jurisdiction over the dispute between the parties. 2. So far as first objection is concerned, it is clear that the work order has been issued on the basis of the tender document issued by Elpro International Commercial Division. The Respondent Company and the Elpro International Commercial Division appear to be sister concerns. In any case as the work order has been apparently issued pursuant to the tender document, work order and the tender document will have to be read together. 3. So far as second objection is concerned, I have already held above that the work order and the tender document will have to be read together. If so done, there is definitely arbitration clause Kambli 3 Arapp50.11 contained in the tender document. 4. So far objection that there is no concluded contract between the parties is concerned, perusal of the work order shows that it has been issued pursuant to the tender document. By the work order offer made by the Petitioner has been accepted. Thus, reading the tender document submitted by the Petitioner and the work order together it is clear that offer made by the Petitioner has been accepted by the work order. Thus, the contract between the parties comes into existence. The work order specifically refers to the terms and conditions contained in the tender document and therefore, there will be concluded contract between the parties on the basis of terms and conditions contained in the tender document and the work order. 5. So far as last objection is concerned, it does not take away the arbitration clause. The effect of that clause is the court other than the courts in Mumbai has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, i.e. for the purpose of challenging the award that may be made or for seeking interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act the court in Mumbai has the jurisdiction. Conferring jurisdiction in courts in Mumbai does not take away the arbitration clause to Kambli 4 Arapp50.11 which the parties have agreed. 6. None of the objections raised by the Respondent thus have any substance. The Petitioner has already appointed Mr.Dilip Pradhan as its nominee on the arbitral tribunal. Now, Mr.Roshan Mamavati, c/o Rajabahadur Mansion, 1st Floor, 22, Bombay Samachar Marg, Mumbai-23 is appointed as nomiee of the Respondent on the arbitral tribunal. The two learned Arbitrators shall now appoint third arbitrator and complete the constitution of the arbitral tribunal. Petition disposed of. (D.K.Deshmukh, J.)