1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION (ARBITRATION) NO. 192 OF 2011. M/s Rahul Steel, thr. Its Proprietor Ramnath S/o Bachiram Gupta, Kapsi (Khurd), Nagpur. .Vrs. Western Coalfields Ltd., thr. Its Chairman Cum Managing Director, WCL and another. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Mr. J.P. Kothari,Advocate for applicant.) -0-0- CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 24.06.2011 Heard Mr. J. P. Kothari, learned Counsel for applicant, Mr. Mehadia, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr. Puranik, learned Counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the arbitration clause which reveals jurisdiction only to the competent Court at Calcutta. Mr. J.P.Kothari, learned Counsel points out that this jurisdiction clause has been modified later 2 on and he is relying upon sale release order dated 20th March, 2008. The said order is issued by Chief General Manager (MM), Coal estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur and in last sentence there of it has been mentioned that dispute if any against it would be subject to the jurisdiction of Nagpur Court only. To find out whether this has brought about any challenge in the agreement between the parties, pleadings as filed before this Court by Petitioner have been looked into and also notice issued by him invoking arbitration clause has been perused. Perusal of paragraph No.21 of the said notice dated 20th September, 2010 reveals the assertion of jurisdiction of Court at Nagpur because of location of Office of respondent no.1 at Nagpur and business of applicant is at Nagpur. It is therefore urged in notice that the jurisdiction conferred at Calcutta is not acceptable to the applicant. The said para nowhere asserts that as per agreement later on modified jurisdiction has been conferred upon Nagpur Court. The application also does not reveal any such statement. 3 Appointment of a Arbitrator has been mutually agreed between the parties and place/jurisdiction therefor is also mutually agreed unanimously stipulation in the sale release order, therefore , cannot alter this position. The said unilateral letter cannot be presumed to bring out any change in understanding between the parties. As mutuality is not established, the sale release order of dated 20th March 2008 does not derogate in any way from the arrangement agreed to in agreement in relation to arbitration. This Court, therefore, does not have jurisdiction. Therefore, application is rejected. JUDGE scd//