1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 454 OF 2009 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 455 OF 2009 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 456 OF 2009 L and T Finance Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. P.K.Earthmovers & 2 Ors. ...Respondents. ..... Mr.Sanjay Anubhavane i/by S.I.Joshi & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P.Prabhu for the Respondents. ..... CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 15 th OCTOBER, 2009. P.C.- 1. In all these three petitions, the petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘The Act’) as the respondents committed defaults in timely payments. Considering the averments and as there are defaults, as recorded, a prima facie, case is made out by the petitioner, as contemplated under Order XL of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The learned counsel appearing for the respondents raised the issue about the jurisdiction by relying on “Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd V/s. T. Thomas Educational Trust, Chennai & Ors., 2004(1)Mh.L.J., 1112,” which 2 in my view, it is not applicable in the present fact and circumstances of the case ,in view of the clear term of arbitration clause, which is reproduced as under : 17. Arbitration : 17.1 Any question dispute or difference that arises between parties or any of them touching or concerning this agreement or any condition herein contained or as to the rights, duties or liabilities of parties hereto or nay of them either during the continuance of the agreement or after termination or purported termination hereof shall be referred to the sole Arbitrator to be appointed by the Lender, according to the provisions of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 and rules thereunder and any amendment thereto from time to time shall apply. 17.2 The award of the arbitrator shall be final, conclusive and binding on all the parties, and all the parties undertake to carry out the award immediately without any delay. The venue of the arbitration shall be Mumbai. The parties have agreed to a particular clause including the aspect of jurisdiction that in my view needs to be respected. Clause 19 discussed about jurisdiction which is reproduced as under : 19. Jurisdiction 19.1 This agreement shall be governed by and construed in all respects with the Indian laws and the parties hereto agree that any matter or issues arising hereunder or any dispute hereunder shall, at the option/discretion of the Lender, be subject to the non- exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the city of Mumbai. This shall not however limit the rights of the Lender to take proceedings in any other court of competent jurisdiction. 3 Under this clause, the parties agreed that the lender can take legal action, if any, in the Court of City of Mumbai also. The choice is provided to the lender/petitioner only. There is no clause of exclusive jurisdiction. 2. Even otherwise out of these three agreements, two agreements provide place of agreements at Mumbai. The clauses of the agreements read with a demand promissory note supports the same. In one agreement, the place of agreement is mentioned at Goa. But other documents as contended reflect that a part cause of action arosed in Mumbai. Therefore, taking totality of the mater and to avoid further complications, though there are three different agreements, but considering above, I am of the view that this court has jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders in the matter. These petitions are maintainable under Section 9 of the Act in Mumbai. 3. Considering the uncontraverted position of record and as Arbitral Tribunal has already constituted and as case is made out, I am inclined to appoint a Receiver in the matter. Admittedly, the respondents have been using the vehicles without making due and timely payments. 4. However, considering the submissions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, that they are ready to pay their dues and as the respondents are using said vehicles and as they want to 4 use it, they would pay the royalty fixed by the Receiver as per the terms of the agreements. 5. In the result, the above petitions are allowed in terms of prayers clause (a) except bracketed portion and (d) subject to above. 6. The liberty is granted to the petitioner to take Police assistance, if necessary, and/or apply for appropriate order in case of defaults. The liberty is granted to the respondents to settle the matter and/or secure the amount. I do not deny the right of the respondents to contest the matter before the Arbitral Tribunal, if constituted, as per the agreement. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)