Territorial jurisdiction in arbitration petitions depends on the contract's forum clause and the place of contract formation.

The High Court of Delhi lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain a section 11 petition for appointment of an arbitrator because the tender was issued and accepted at Allahabad, where the agreement was executed. The contract's jurisdiction clause validly confined disputes to the courts at the place from which acceptance of tender was issued, and the parties could choose one competent court to the exclusion of others. The mere presence of some cause of action in Delhi, or an office of the respondents there, did not confer jurisdiction. The petition was therefore not maintainable in Delhi and was directed to be returned for presentation before the appropriate court at Allahabad.

---

---

Issues: Whether this Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain the petition for appointment of an arbitrator under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The contract documents showed that the tender was issued and accepted at Allahabad and the agreement was executed there. The governing conditions of contract contained a jurisdiction clause providing that the courts at the place from which acceptance of tender had been issued alone would have jurisdiction over disputes arising out of the contract. Even if some part of the cause of action arose at Delhi and the respondents had an office there, the parties could validly choose one amongst the competent courts to the exclusion of others. The principal office of the General Manager concerned was at Allahabad, and the mere existence of the Railway Board office at Delhi did not confer jurisdiction on this Court.

Conclusion: This Court lacked territorial jurisdiction and the petition was not maintainable here; the petition was to be returned for presentation before the appropriate court at Allahabad.

---