IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2009 / 26TH SRAVANA 1931 RP.No. 788 of 2009(U) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.15003/2009 DATED 02/06/2009 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/WRIT PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------------------- ABDUL KAREEM,S/O.MAMMAD MUSLIYAR, MUSLIYARAKATH HOUSE,CHATHANGOTTUPURAM.P.O, CHERUKODU, WANDOOR,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.K.MUHAMMED SALAHUDHEEN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. PRADEEP,AREA MANAGER,L & T FINANCE LTD, SKY BRIGHT BUILDINGS,M.G.ROAD,RAVIPURAM JN. ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 016. 2. MANAGER & AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,L & T FINANCE LTD., SKY BRIGHT BUILDINGS,M.G.ROAD, RAVIPURAM JN.,ERNAKULAM,KOCHI-682 016. 3. L & T FINANCE LTD.NO.47,MONTEITH ROAD, EGMORE, CHENNAI-600 008, REP.BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR.RAJA THESINGU. 4. L & T FINANCE LTD.,REGISTERED OFFICE OF L & T HOUSE,BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI-400 001, AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT 3B LAXMI TOWERS, C25, G BLOCK, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400 051. 5. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,KONDOTTY POLICE STATION,KONDOTTY-MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. R5 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.I.V. PRAMOD. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P.788/2009 in W.P.(C).15003/2009-U = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of August, 2009. O R D E R The petitioner seeks review of the judgment issued in a writ petition filed invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the premise that arbitration proceedings are initiated in the wrong jurisdiction. By judgment dated 2nd June, 2009, I recorded that the arbitration proceedings invoked by a financier cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The plea of the petitioner is that jurisdiction of different authorities in Mumbai and Chennai are involved. It is not for this Court to sit on the question of territorial jurisdiction of arbitration on agreement between the private parties. I do not find any error of jurisdiction or other error apparent on the face of the record of the RP788/09 -: 2 :- judgment sought to be reviewed. The review petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. Sha/280809