Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Pradeep Jain S/O Prakash Chand Jain vs The Chairman, on 3 July, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:24824]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Arbitration Application No. 130/2025
URN: ARBAP / 197U / 2025
Pradeep Jain S/o Prakash Chand Jain, Aged About 44 Years, R/o
M/s. Sanskruti Shopping Arcade No.3/144, Near Railway
Crossing Jaipur Road, Dausa (Raj.).
----Applicant
Versus
1. The Chairman, GTL, Infrastructure Ltd. Mastrol House,
MIDC Building No.2, Sector-2, Milenium Business Park,
Mahapey, Navi Mumbai-400710.
2. Authorize Signatory, (Branch Office), GTL Infrastructure
Ltd., Third Floor, Gitanjali Tower, Unit No.312 to 319, Civil
Lines, Bombay Walo Ka Bagh, Ajmer Road, Jaipur-
302006.
3. Naresh Israni S/o M.R. Israni, Third Floor, Gitanjali Tower,
Unit No.312 to 319, Civil Lines, Bombay Walo Ka Bagh,
Ajmer Road, Jaipur-302006.
----Respondents
For Applicant(s) : Ms. Sweta Pareek
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
03/07/2026
1. The present application under Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for brevity “the Act of 1996”)
has been filed before this Court seeking appointment of an
arbitrator to resolve the dispute which has arisen between the
parties.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submits
that as per Clause 16 of the Agreement, since a dispute has
arisen, reference may be made of the dispute to the Arbitrator to
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:16:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 11:14:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:24824] (2 of 4) [ARBAP-130/2025]
be appointed by this Court, as after the dispute arose they had
sent a notice to which the respondents have not responded.
3. Learned counsel appearing for applicant has also submitted
that in the case of Indus Mobile Distribution Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Datawind Innovations Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2017 Supreme
Court 2105, the definition of “Court” has been quoted. She
therefore, submits that though the seat of arbitration has been
decided to be at Pune, the present Arbitration Application filed
under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 would lie in Rajasthan too, as
cause of action has arisen in Rajasthan.
4. Clause 16 of the Agreement reads as under:
“16. Any dispute or claim between the parties
hereto arising out of or relating to this
agreement, or its implementations and / or its
effect, or the breach, termination, due to
efflux of time or otherwise, or invalidity
thereof, either during its subsistence or after
its termination, shall be referred to the
arbitration of a sole arbitrator in accordance
with the provisions of Arbitrations and
Reconciliation Act 1996. The Arbitration shall
be held at Pune.”
5. I have considered the submissions.
6. On perusal of the Agreement, it is apparent that a seat for
arbitration has been chosen by both the parties to be at Pune
(Maharashtra). The jurisdiction of this Court, therefore, would not
lie in appointing an arbitrator at Maharashtra to conduct the
arbitration in Pune.
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:16:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 11:14:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:24824] (3 of 4) [ARBAP-130/2025]
7. I also find that while noticing the various provisions of law,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Indus Mobile
Distribution Pvt. Ltd. (supra), ultimately, had held as under:
“20. A conspectus of all the aforesaid
provisions shows that the moment the seat is
designated, it is akin to an exclusive
jurisdiction clause. On the facts of the present
case, it is clear that the seat of arbitration is
Mumbai and Clause 19 further makes it clear
that jurisdiction exclusively vests in the
Mumbai courts. Under the Law of Arbitration,
unlike the Code of Civil Procedure which
applies to suits filed in courts, a reference to
“seat” is a concept by which a neutral venue
can be chosen by the parties to an arbitration
clause. The neutral venue may not in the
classical sense have jurisdiction-that is, no
part of the cause of action may have arisen at
the neutral venue and neither would any of
the provisions of Sections 16 to 21 of the CPC
be attracted. In arbitration law however, as
has been held above, the moment “seat” is
determined, the fact that the seat is at
Mumbai would vest Mumbai courts with
exclusive jurisdiction for purposes of
regulating arbitral proceedings arising out of
the agreement between the parties.
21. It is well-settled that where more than
one court has jurisdiction, it is open for parties
to exclude all other courts. For an exhaustive
analysis of the case law, see Swastik Gases
Private Limited v. Indian Oil Corporation
Limited (2013) 9 SCC 32. This was followed in
a recent judgment in B.E. Simoese Von(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:16:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 11:14:38 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:24824] (4 of 4) [ARBAP-130/2025]Staraburg Niedenthal and another v.
Chhattisgarh Investment Limited. (2015) 12
SCC 225. Having regard to the above, it is
clear that Mumbai courts alone have
jurisdiction to the exclusion of all other courts
in the country, as the juridical seat of
arbitration is at Mumbai. This being the case,
the impugned judgment is set aside. The
injunction confirmed by the impugned
judgment will continue for a period of four
weeks from the date of pronouncement of this
judgment, so that the respondents may take
necessary steps under Section 9 in the
Mumbai Court. Appeals are disposed of
accordingly.”
8. In view of above, the issue is no more res integra that only
the Court in Maharashtra (where the jurisdiction of Pune would lie)
will have jurisdiction to decide the dispute. The arbitrator,
therefore, would have to be appointed by the Bombay High Court
in terms of Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996. The arbitration
application filed before this Court, therefore, is found to be
misconceived. The same is accordingly dismissed.
9. The original documents may be released to the applicant
with liberty to take up the matter before the appropriate forum.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ
1/AMIT KUMAR/405
(Uploaded on 08/07/2026 at 05:16:45 PM)
(Downloaded on 08/07/2026 at 11:14:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
