%09.01.2008 Present: Mr. Gagan Chhabra,Mr. A.M. Tripathiand Mr. Mayank Chawla for the petitioners. .jyiLvS. Cha^ Advocate with Mr, R.C. Beri for the respondents. + Arb. P, Nos. 164/2007 to 182/2007. 288/2007 tn 290/2007. 292/2007 to 296/2007. 298/2007. 299/2007 301/2007. 303/2007. 308/2007. 310/2007 to 313/2007. 315/2007, 316/2007. 318/2007 & 320/2007 to 323/2007. 326/2007 . 327/2007. 329/2007. 492/2007 to 49d/2007 and OMP Nds. 168/2007 to 186/2007. 207/2007 to 217/2007. 219/2007, 220/2007. 222/2007. 223/2007. 225/2007. 226/2007 & 268/2007 to 270/2007. 273/2007. 274/2007. 278/2007. 280/2007 to 283/2007. 285/2007 & 645/2007 tn 647/2007 ^ Theseare batch nnattersand have been taken up for hearing together. There are two sets of petitions, one is under Section 11 and the other is under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. " The petitioners in all these petitions had booked a commercialspace with respondentNo. 1 in a commercialcomplex to be constructed by it at Mumbai.The petitionersare either NRIs •) • " ' ' . • or are residents of Delhi.The builderagreement executed between the parties contains a Clause being Clause 37 of Schedule II (annexed with the main agreement) whereby the parties had agreed that the Bombay High Court and courts subordinateto it alone shall have exclusivejurisdictionin all mattersarisingout of/ touchingand/orconcerningthe transactionin question.Clause28 ofthe main agreement betweenthe partiesprovidesforreference Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified y of dispute to the sole Arbitrator. As per agreement between the parties, the venue of the arbitration was agreed to be at New Delhi, the law is well settled that the venue of arbitration agreed by the parties shall not decide the jmMrtion of"The^Court to adjudicate the dispute that may arise between them under the agreement. It is admitted "by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the property to be constructed by respondent - - . • . ' No. 1 is situated in Mumbaj. it is a matter of record that the parties by their agreement have agreed to submit their dispute only to the urisdiction of Bombay High Court and to ho other court. This obviously bars the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain these petitions. Mr. Chhabra appearing on behalf of the petitioners has very fairly conceded to this legal position. All these petitions are,, therefore/dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction of this-Court to entertain and try the said petitions. Before parting with this order, it may be noted that when on 04.04.2007 the matter, being OMP No. 168/2007 titled M/s Convenience Enterprises Pvt. Ltd Vs. M/s Ozo Media Estate Ltd. and Another, was tal<en up for admission hearing Mr. Ashol< Mahendru, Director of the respondent companies was present before the Court and he had made a statement before the Court on that day that the respondents shall not sell, alienate or create any third party interest in respectof the suit property/portionof the land measuring 2128 sq. mtrs. with structures standing thereon. This statement made by Mr. Mahendru was accepted by the Court on that day. In view of the statement of Mr. Mahendru, this Court vide its interim order passed on 04.04.2007 had restrained the respondents from sellihg, alienating or creating any third party interest in respect of commercial office space Nos. 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117 & 2118 measuring 2250 sq. fts on the 2r^ Floor of the multi-storeyed building constructed on the property bearing No. 844/1-14, Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Road, Andheri (West), Mumbai. Similar orders were passed in other connected cases of the petitioners as well. Now since this Court has found that this Court would have no territorial jurisdiction over the subject matter in the present petitions, the interim orders passed by this Court are hereby vacated. However, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice demand-that the respondents should abide by the statement given by their Director Mr. Ashok Mahendru to the Court on 04.04.2007 in OMP No. 168/2007 for a periodof8 weeksfrom todayto enablethe petitionersto approach the Court of connpetent jurisdiction and obtain appropriate relief therefrom as per law. In view of the above, all these petitions stand disposed of accordingly. All the pending lAs also stand disposed of. JANUARY09, 2008 S.N.AGGARWAL,J 3