M/S C.L. GUPTA AND SONSversusCONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN SERVICES UP JAL NIGAM URBAN AND 2 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
       ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 145 of 2026

M/S C.L. Gupta And Sons
                                                                      .....Applicant(s)
                                        Versus

Construction And Design Services Up Jal Nigam
Urban And 2 Others                                                        .....Opposite
                                                                                Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                : Kartikay Agarwal, Vipul Dube
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)           : Suresh Singh, Vimlesh Kumar Rai

Court No. - 7
                      HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.


2. The instant application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been filed seeking appointment of a
sole Arbitrator.


3. Learned counsel for the respondent raises a preliminary objection with regard to the
maintainability of the present application by submitting that without invoking the right
of appeal given in clauses 24.2 and 25.2 of the agreement, the applicant has filed the
instant application before this Court. He further submits that this Court has no
jurisdiction to entertain the application in view of the clause 25.6 of the agreement,
which provides that the arbitration proceeding shall be held at Lucknow and therefore,
the instant application is not maintainable. He further submits that the agreement was
signed at Lucknow and the place of work was at Pratapgarh and the applicant itself
moved an application under section 9 of the Act before the Commercial Court,
Lucknow. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain this
application. Learned counsel for the opposite party has placed reliance upon the
judgments in BGS SGS Soma JV Vs. NHPC [(2020) 4 SCC 234], Inox Renewable
Ltd. Vs. Jayesh Electricals Limited [2021 SCC Online SC 448] and West Bengal &
Another Vs. Associated Contractors [(2015) 1 SCC 32].


4. Rebutting the said submission, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
dispute resolution mechanism provided in clauses 24 & 25 of the agreement are
directory in nature and not mandatory and therefore, the same do not bar the applicant
from approaching this Court and this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant
application. He further submits that the registration of the applicant is at Prayagraj
and the work in question was awarded, executed and administered through the Office
of respondent no. 3 situated at Prayagraj. He further submits that the entire
correspondence in relation to the execution of the work were addressed and issued
from the Office at Prayagraj and therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this
application under Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
                                                                 ARCO No. 145 of 2026
                                    2

5. The rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties have been
considered and the material available on record has been carefully perused.


6. The controversy, in essence, is confined to the question as to whether, in view of
the express stipulation contained in the arbitration agreement, this Court can exercise
jurisdiction under Section 11(6) of the Act.


7. For a proper appreciation of the controversy, relevant part of Clause 25.6 of the
agreement, which contains the arbitration clause, is reproduced herein below:


“25.6. Arbitration proceedings shall be held at Lucknow (U.P.), India or such place
as may be fixed by the Arbitral Tribunal in consultation with both the parties. Failing
any such agreement, the Arbitral Tribunal shall decide the venue. The language of the
arbitration proceedings shall be English or as decided by the Arbitrator/ Tribunal.
However language that of all documents and communications between the parties can
be English or Hindi."


8. A plain and meaningful reading of Clause 25.6 makes the intention of the parties
abundantly clear. The parties, while entering into the agreement, consciously
stipulated that the arbitration proceedings shall be held at Lucknow. Such a stipulation
cannot be treated as an inconsequential or incidental term of the agreement. The place
agreed upon by the parties for conduct of the arbitral proceedings assumes
significance in determining the jurisdiction of the Court competent to exercise
supervisory jurisdiction over such proceedings.


9. It is true that ordinarily the existence of a part of the cause of action within the
territorial jurisdiction of a Court may confer jurisdiction upon such Court in
appropriate proceedings. However, an application under Section 11 of the Act cannot
be examined in isolation from the arbitration agreement executed between the parties.
Once the parties have expressly agreed upon the place of arbitration, the Court is
required to give due effect to such contractual stipulation, subject, of course, to the
agreement being otherwise legally enforceable.


10. In the present case, the contractual language is clear, unambiguous and incapable
of admitting any other reasonable interpretation. Clause 25.6 specifically provides that
“Arbitration proceedings shall be held at Lucknow (U.P.), India or such place as may
be fixed by the Arbitral Tribunal in consultation with both the parties.” There is no
material before this Court on the basis whereof the said stipulation can be ignored or
rendered has placed.


11. For the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
present application is not maintainable before this Court for want of territorial
jurisdiction. The preliminary objection raised by the respondent, therefore, deserves to
be and is hereby upheld.


12. Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction.


13. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the
                                                                                                   ARCO No. 145 of 2026
                                                                       3

                                    applicant's claim or the existence of any arbitrable dispute between the parties. The
                                    disposal of the present application shall, therefore, not preclude the applicant from
                                    availing such remedy as may be available to it in accordance with law before the
                                    competent Court having jurisdiction in terms of the arbitration agreement. The
                                    applicant shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate Court/forum in accordance
                                    with law.




                                                                                                 (Piyush Agrawal,J.)
                                    September 30, 2026
                                    Amit Mishra




Digitally signed by :-
AMIT KUMAR MISHRA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad