1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.346 OF 2007 M/s.Gautam Packaging Industries and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Goldcrest Finance India Ltd. .. Respondents Mr.Simil Purohit with B.G.Saraf for petitioners Mr.Cyrus Pooniwala with Diana Postwala for respondents. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 21st August 2009. P.C.: 1] When this petition was placed before me for admission, I called upon Mr.Purohit to satisfy me as to how this petition could have been filed in this Court. 2] From the record it is apparent that the Arbitrator was appointed by the Hon'ble Karnata High Court, venue of the Arbitration was at Mumbai and even the award was published at Mumbai. On this basis it is contended by Mr.Purohit that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain and 1 try this petition. 3] However, with the assistance of the Counsel appearing for parties I have perused the copy of the Award annexed to the petition. The Arbitrator has endorsed below the award that it was dictated and transcribed and signed at Bangalore. The Arbitrator is based at Bangalore who is a former Judge of the Karnataka High Court. Further, all parties are based in the State of Karnataka. 4] The loan agreement, a copy of which is handed over by Mr.Purohit is also executed at Bangalore. 5] The definition of the term “Court” appearing in in Section 2(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act is clear. It is that Court within whose jurisdiction the parties could have filed the instant petition to challenge the award, if subject matter of the petition were to be a suit and could have been otherwise instituted in law in that Court. In other words, the definition will have to be seen as a whole. So read and construed, it is apparent that if a suit had to be filed in this case it was required to be filed 1 in competent court within the State of Karnataka. Merely because the venue of the arbitral proceedings is at Mumbai and the clause in the agreement being relied upon, does not mean that, this Court would have jurisdiction to entertain and try this petition. The clauses which have been relied upon in the instant case viz., clauses 26 and 30 cannot be seen in isolation but will have to be seen along with the fact that the loan agreement is executed at Bangalore and the Award in the instant case as is apparent from it is published at Bangalore. 6] In these circumstances, in my opinion, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try instant petition. 7] In these circumstances, I direct that the petition be returned to the Petitioner's Advocate for presentation to competent court. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)