%09.01.2008 Present: Mr. Gagan Ghhabra, Mr. A.M. Tripathi and Mr. Mayank Chawla for the petitioners. , . _1 _M Advocate with Mr. R.C. Beri for the respondents. + Mrp. I- 290/2007. IMOS. lt>4/ZUU/ to 1S2/2007. 288/2007 tO 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 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 commercialspace with respondentNo. 1 in a commercialcomplex to be constructed by it at Mumbai. The petitioners are either NRIs ^ or are 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 subordinate to it alone shall have exclusivejurisdictionin all mattersarisingout of/ touchingand/prconcerningthe transactionin question.Clause 28 of the 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 •\ • : • •> 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 jurisdiction ofTfTe~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 constructed by respondent No. 1 is situated in Mumbai.it is a matter ofrecordthat the parties by theiragreementhave agreedto submittheirdisputeonlyto the ^ jurisdiction of Bombay High Court and to no other court. This 0^ obviously bars the jurisdictionof this Court to entertain these petitions. Mr. Chhabra appearing on behalf of the petitioners has very fairly conceded to this legal position.All these petitionsare, therefore, dismissed for want of territorial jurisdictionof this-Court to entertain and try the said petitions. Before parting with this order, it nriay 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. /\shok Mahendru, Director of the respondent companies was present before the Court and he had made a statementbefore the Court on that day that the respondentsshall not sell, alienateor create any third party InterestIn respectof the suit jDroperty/portlonof the land measuring 2128 sq. mtrs. with structures standing •'tS-;- thereon, this Statement made by Mr. MahendrU was accepted by the Court on that day. In view of the statement of Mr. Mahendnu, this Court yide iits interim order passed on 04.04.2007 had restrained the respondents from seiiing; a+i^rtathig-or:creattng-ai7y third party interest in respect of commerciai office space Nos. 2114,2li5; 2116^ measuring2250sq^ fts on the Fibor of the multi-storeyed building constructedvon tl^ property bearing No. 844^1-14, Shah Industrial Estate, Veiera Desai Road, Andheri (West),jMumbai; Similar orders were passed in-other; connected cases! of the petitioners as well. Now since this Courts ha$;foundthat tlijis Courtwould have no terntoriaiJurisdictionoyer the subject matter in the present petitions, the ihterim orders passed by this Court are hereby vacated. However, this Court is of r. Ashok Mahendrg to thei Court on 04.04.2007 in OMP No. 168/2007 for a the Court of corppetent jurisdiction and obtain appropriate relief ^ i therefromas perl law/^^^^^^^^ In view ofjthe^ all these petitionsstand disposed of '••/iaccorxlinglyl";- l/ANUARY09, 2q08 S.N.AGGARWAL,J 'a-- ^ .. ^ I . •