SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS C24 No. 6/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Pooran Singh Rawat and Mr. M.C. Upadhyay, Counsel for the applicant. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Counsel for the respondent. (2) An award was passed in favour of applicant, which was challenged by filing an application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Said application has been filed before Commercial Court, Dehradun. By means of this transfer application, applicant has sought transfer of the said arbitration case from Commercial Court, Dehradun to Commercial Court, Haldwani. (3) Applicant has drawn attention of this Court to Clause 27 and 120 of the agreement entered into between the parties. Clause 27 and 120 are reproduced below: “(27) िकसी भी प्रकार के कानूनी िववाद उ̂पɄ होने की İस्थित मŐ िविधक कायŊ Ɨेत्र (Legal Jurisdiction) नैनीताल होगा A (120) यह िक पƗकारों मŐ वतŊमान ˝ृित- पत्र के अथाŊȶर तथा ŝपाȶर के सɾɀ मŐ िववाद होने पर तथा अɊ िकसी प्रकार का िववाद होने पर मामला, मȯस्थता Ȫारा िनˑाįरत िकया जायेगा और अɊ उपचार विजŊत होगाA मȯस्थ की कायŊवाही भारतीय सुलह एवं मȯस्थ अिधिनयम 1996 यथा संसोिधत- 2015 के अंतगŊत की जायेगीA Ɋायालय का Ɨेत्रािधकार मात्र नैनीताल होगा, अɊ स्थान का Ɨेत्रािधकार िविशʼ ŝप से विजŊत रहेगाA यह भी िविशʼ ŝप से िनधाŊįरत िकया जाता है, जो भी पƗ मȯस्थ कायŊवाही संबिधत करेगा वह Ƒेम मŐ मांगी जा रही धनरािश की एक प्रितशत धनरािश मȯस्थ के पास अिग्रम ŝप से जमा करेगा िक जो हजő के िनˑारण मŐ तथा मȯस्थता वाद ʩय मŐ िनधाŊįरत होगीA पƗकारगण इस तȚ पर आपिȅ नहीं करते हœ और न ही करŐगे िक, मȯस्थ महोदय शासकीय अिधकारी हœ और उȅराखंड शासन के अिधकारी हœA पƗकार इस तȚों से सहमत है िक िववाद होने के उपरांत पƗकार एक पर˙र संिध इस आशय से अंिकत करŐगे िक उɎŐ प्रथम पƗ Ȫारा मनोनीत मȯस्थ पƗ कोई आपिȅ नहीं होगी पƗकार मनोनयन व प्रˑािवत मȯस्थ के िवŜȠ कोई आपिȅ नहीं करŐगेA” (4) Based on the aforesaid clause, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in terms of the stipulation made in the agreement, Commercial Court at Dehradun does not have jurisdiction and the matter is cognizable only by Commercial Court at Haldwani, as the agreement itself provides that in case of any dispute, the courts at Nainital alone will have the territorial jurisdiction. (5) Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned Counsel for the respondent, per contra, submits that seat of arbitration was Dehradun and the arbitration proceedings were also held at Dehradun and the award was also passed at Dehradun, therefore Commercial Court at Dehradun alone will have jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act. (6) Since applicant has sought transfer on the ground that the Commercial Court at Dehradun lacks the territorial jurisdiction, such objection can be raised before the Commercial Court at Dehradun by filing appropriate application. Proceedings under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act cannot be transferred on the ground taken by the applicant in this transfer application. (7) Transfer application is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to the applicant to move appropriate application before the Commercial Court, Dehradun raising the question of territorial jurisdiction. If he moves such application, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, as per law. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 16.5.2025 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af 3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588 052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.05.17 12:58:36 +05'30'