1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 402 OF 2009 Joindre Capital Services Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Santosh Jain ...Respondent. ..... Mr.Jayant Gaikwad i/by Ajay Khandar & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.Chetan Kapadia with Mr. Atmaram Mehta a/w. Ms.Renuka Lele i/by M/s.Haresh Mehta & Co. for the Respondent. ..... CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 2nd December, 2009. P.C.- 1. The petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, 'the Arbitration Act') whereby challenged the Award dated 25th February 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator of National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. in arbitration matter between the parties arising out of Rules, Regulations and Bye-laws of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. 2. The basic averments in the present petition are in paragraphs nos. 12, 13 & 15, which reads as under : 2 “12. The petitioner states that the sole Arbitrator of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., has passed an Award dated 7th September 2002 in Arbitration Reference No. A.M. No. M-189 of 2001 and awarded Rs.47,250/- being the purchase price of 25 shares of Penta media Greaphics with interest @ 15% p.a.from the date of award till the date of payment to the respondent. 13. The respondent filed Appeal before the Hon’ble Upper District Judge, Dewas (M.P.) for challenge the Award dated 7th September 2002 passed by the sole Arbitrator of National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., in Arbitration Reference No. A.M. No. M-189 of 2001. The Hon’ble Upper District Judge, Dewas (M.P.) passed by an order on 31st January 2008 and reverted back the matter to National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., for rehearing the matter. 15. The matter was heard and ultimately by an Award dated 25th February 2009 passed by the sole Arbitrator of the National Stock Exchange of India Ltd., in Arbitration Reference No. A.M.No.M-078 of 2008 and awarded Rs.3,03,530/- to the respondent. Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit-’A’ is the copy of the award dated 25th February 2009.” 3 3. The objections to the maintainability of this petition in this Court at Mumbai raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in view of Section 42 of the Arbitration Act, which is reproduced as under : “42. Jurisdiction.- Notwithstanding anything contained elsewhere in this Part or in any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement any application under this Part has been made in a Court, that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. ” 4. The Apex Court in (2006) 11 Supreme Court Cases 521 (Jindal Vijayanagar Steel (JSW Steel Ltd.) Versus Jindal Praxair Oxygen Co. Ltd., considered this section and observed that having once invoked the arbitration proceedings in a particular court or within the court of particular jurisdiction, the subsequent proceedings should be filed in the same court only. The above facts as reproduced are in dispute, therefore, govern by the above law. 4 5. In view of above averments itself, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition at Mumbai. The liberty is granted to the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court. 6. In view of above, by keeping all points open for both the parties, the petition is disposed of with liberty. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)