HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ARBITRATION AND CONCILI. APPL.U/S11(4) No. - 145 of 2026 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kartikay Agarwal, Vipul Dube Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Suresh Singh, Vimlesh Kumar Rai M/S C.L. Gupta And Sons .....Applicant(s) Construction And Design Services Up Jal Nigam Urban And 2 Others .....Opposite Party(s) 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 2 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. September 30, 2026 Amit Mishra ARCO No. 145 of 2026 3 (Piyush Agrawal,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad