1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 894 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited ...Petitioner. Vs. Deepak Jawaharlal Gupta ...Respondent. Mr. Mangesh Patel for the Petitioner. Mr. J.P. Mishra for the Respondent. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 11th November, 2009. P.C.- 1 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has pointed out clauses 11.16 and 11.17 of the Personal Loan Cum guarantee Agreement, which are as under:- “11.16 Unless the same falls within the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal established under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, any and all claims and disputes arising out of or in connection with this Agreement or its performance shall be settled by arbitration by a single Arbitrator to be appointed by the Bank. The arbitration shall be held in Chennai in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 11.17 In the event that the claim or dispute does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Debts Recovery Tribunal established under the Recovery of Debts Due To Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993, for the purposes of arbitration mentioned in clause 2 (10.16), the court in Chennai shall, subject to the provisions of law, have exclusive jurisdiction.” 2 Admittedly, amount involved is less than Rs.10 lacs. Therefore, the Tribunal as contemplated under Debts Recovery Tribunal has no jurisdiction but the Civil Court. This aspect is not in dispute. 3 The point is, in view of above exclusive clause, whether this Court at Mumbai has jurisdiction. 4 The commercial document like this needs to be respected from the point of view of the agreement and the contents referred therein. Having once agreed, though agreement took place/signed in Mumbai, that the Court in Channai shall have exclusive jurisdiction, this in my view, need to be respected from every angle. 5 The Apex Court recently in Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Private Limited Vs. Praveen Bhatia & Ors., (2009) 8 S.C.C. 779 and prior to that in Rajasthan State Electricity Board Vs. Universal Petrol Chemicals Ltd. (2009) 3 S.C.C. 107, considering the various facets of such submission referring to Arbitration Act, 1996, has observed that such agreement/ arbitration clauses need to be respected. Therefore, having once agreed in my view, this exclusive clause of jurisdiction at Chennai should prevail. 6 It is not the question of part of cause of execution in Mumbai as 3 agreement took place and signed at Mumbai but in spite of agreement between the parties have agreed to settle their dispute in the Court, exclusively, at Chennai. 7 I have already taken a view in Arbitration Petition No. 152 of 2009, Networth Stock Borking Ltd. Vs. Madhava Rao Nadella, dated 7 th November, 2009, that such exclusive clause in view of above Supreme Court judgments is sufficient to consider the case of the parties who raise the objection, in either way, in the present case as referred above, therefore this Court at Mumbai has no jurisdiction. 8 Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction only. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)