IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.16 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.413 OF 2009 Indiabulls Financial Services Ltd. ... Appellant Versus Loyal Motors Pvt.Ltd. and others. ... Respondents Mr. V.B. Naik with Mr. Sachin Chandrana i/by M/s. Kartikeya & Associates for the appellant. CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE, CHIEF JUSTICE & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 9TH MARCH, 2010 P.C. Being aggrieved by the order dated 30th June, 2009, passed in Arbitration Petition No.413 of 2009 alongwith other matters, this appeal has been filed. 2. The question before the learned Single Judge was with regard to the jurisdiction of this court. 3. Looking to the clauses of the Arbitration Agreement, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 4. The learned Single Judge has referred the relevant clauses which clearly reveal that the sole arbitrator shall conduct arbitration proceedings at New Delhi/Delhi. 5. In view of the aforesaid portion of the clause incorporated in the Arbitration Agreement, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that he has no jurisdiction. 6. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the property in question is situated in Mumbai and he has also relied upon the judgments delivered by Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Pacific Greens Infracon Pvt.Ltd. v. M/s. Senior Builders Ltd., OMP No.190/2009 and in the case of Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. and another, (2005)7 SCC 791. 7. Upon hearing the learned advocate appearing for the appellant and looking to the impugned judgment, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that this court has no jurisdiction. We have also gone through the record which reveals that the arbitration agreement which had been entered into in Delhi, specifically provided that arbitration proceedings should be conducted at Delhi and perhaps cause of action had also arisen at Delhi. In our opinion, looking to the facts of this case, the learned Single Judge was also justified in coming to the conclusion that this court has no jurisdiction. In our opinion, the judgments cited by the learned advocate for the appellant would not help the appellant. 8. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.