1 Appeal no. 1050-2010 dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 1056 OF 2010 IN NTOICE OF MOTION NO. 3872 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 367 OF 2009 Jain Studio Limited. .. Appellants Vs. Maitry Exports Pvt. Ltd., .. Respondents Mr. Rahul Chitnis a/w Pritesh Rajgor i/by PDS & Associates for Appellants. Mr. Gautam Ankhad a/w Mr. T.P. Gujjar i/by Ashwin Ankhad & Associates for Respondents. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. DECEMBER 03, 2010. P.C. We have heard Mr. Chitnis, the learned counsel for the Appellants who are respondents in Arbitration Petition No. 367 of 2009 and the appeal is directed against the order dated 4.3.2010 passed in Notice of Motion No. 3872 of 2009 in the said petition. 2 Appeal no. 1050-2010 2. The appellant company had taken out notice of Motion No. 3872 of 2009 in Arbitration Petition No. 367 of 2009 for dismissal of the arbitration petition under Section 34 and against the award dated 3.2.2009 by invoking the provisions of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It was contended by the appellants in the said notice of motion that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the arbitration petition. It was further contended that the interim award dated 14.12.2006 was challenged before the Delhi High Court by them and, therefore, having regard to the scheme of Section 42 of the Act, the arbitration petition was required to be filed before the Delhi High Court. 3. The learned Single Judge by his well reasoned order was pleased to dismiss the motion by the impugned order dated 4.3.2010. 4. There is no dispute that the Summary Suit No. 3645 of 1999 was filed before this Court. Both the parties by consent agreed to refer the dispute to the Arbitral Tribunal and at that stage there was no objection raised by the respondents about the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the suit. On the basis of the consent purshis the Arbitrator came to be appointed and the petition filed under Section 34 i.e. Arbitration Petition 3 Appeal no. 1050-2010 No. 367 of 2009 has been filed against the award dated 3.2.2009. Mr. Chitnis relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jindal Vijayanagar Steel (JSW Steel Ltd., ) vs. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Co. Ltd., reported in (2006) 11 SCC 521. 5. Suffice it to observe that we do not find any case made out to reconsider the view taken by the learned Single Judge and in any case all the issues including the issue of jurisdiction could be agitated while challenging the final order passed in Arbitration Petition No. 367 of 2009 if and when such an occasion arises. Appeal dismissed. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)