1 2026:CGHC:15626 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ARBR No. 31 of 2024 Ms Anacon Laboratries Private Limited, acting through its authorized Managing Director, Dr. Dattatraya Gajanan Garway, Aged About 64 Years, Occupation - Private, having its office at Plot No. 60, Bajiprabhu Nagar, Near Ramnagar Square, Nagpur – 33 (Maharashtra) Mail: safety@anacon.in.dgg@anacon.in ... Applicant versus 1. The General Manager (O), MPSO, Indian Oil Bhawan, 16 Arera Hills, Jail Road, Bhopal-462011, Madhya Pradesh, Mail- Rravichandran@Indianoil.in, 2. The Chairman and Managing Director, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Indian Oil Bhawan, Northern Regional Office,1, Shri Aurobindo Marg, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi-110016, ... Respondents For Applicant : Mr. Shahil Singh, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 06 .04.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shahil Singh, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of Arbitrator. 3. At the outset, Mr. Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents submits that Clause 4 of the tender document contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause, which confers the venue of arbitration at Mumbai alone. Further, clause PREETI KUMARI Digitally signed by PREETI KUMARI Date: 2026.04.08 11:53:37 +0530 2 50 of the tender document confirms that Court at Bhopal shall have the exclusive jurisdiction. The applicant Company is situated at Nagpur and all communications of the applicant have been carried out with Indian Oil Corporation, Jabalpur Depot and the State Office at Bhopal, therefore, no part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial limits of the State of Chhattisgarh. Hence, the present application is not maintainable before this Hon’ble Court and is liable to dismissed on this ground alone. 4. After arguing at some length for some time, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he seeks to withdraw the present application, with liberty to file an appropriate application before the competent Court/forum. 5. The aforesaid request is made by the applicant in light of the preliminary objection raised by counsel for the respondents, who contends that no cause of action has arisen in the State of Chhattisgarh, as the parties belong to Maharashtra and the work awarded by the respondent was to be executed at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. 6. In view of the above, the present arbitration request petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Preeti