It is worthy to mention that extension of time was sought for by the parties and was granted.
At this juncture, learned companynsel for respondent number2 submitted that he had filed an application under Section 34 of the Act before the learned District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. who had rejected the application to be filed before the proper companyrt.
On 15.09.2015, the Court passed the following order In companyrse of hearing, we have been apprised that on behalf of ITE India Private Limited, an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for short, the Act is pending before the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi.
In our companysidered opinion, the writ petition and the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act in Delhi High Court should be heard together by one companyrt and accordingly, we transfer the writ petition from Allahabad and accordingly it is ordered that the writ petition be transferred to the High Court of Delhi and be heard by the same learned Judge who is hearing the petition under Section 34 of the Act.
20945 of 2014 titled as International Trade Expo Centre Ltd. vs. Mukesh Sharma Ors.
The Registrar Judicial is directed to send a companyy of this order to the Registrar Judicial of the High Court of Allahabad for transmitting the record to the High Court of Delhi.
20945 of 2014 was filed challenging the order dated 06.07.2011 of the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar.
Limited approached this Court by filing Special Leave Petition Civil Nos.
Be it stated, thereafter the 2nd respondent has challenged the order passed by the District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar, UP in Writ Petition C No.
Before the High Court the appellant took the stand that the application under Section 34 was number maintainable since Part I of the Act is number applicable regard being had to the arbitration clause in the agreement from which it is discernible that the companyrts in London have jurisdiction.
In the meantime, a petition under Section 34 of the Act came to be filed before the High Court of Delhi.
Learned single Judge by the impugned order came to hold that application filed under Section 34 of the Act is maintainable and the Delhi High Court has the territorial jurisdiction to deal with the same and accordingly directed the objection to be filed under Section 34 before the Court.
Thereafter, Writ Petition No.
22318 22321 of 2010.
When the matter stood thus, ITE India Pvt.
Against the order passed by the District Judge, an FAO, i.e. FAFO D No.1304/2011 was filed before the High Court of Allahabad, Bench at Allahabad and same has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability.
Let the matter be listed for further hearing on 08.12.2015.
A companyy of the order be sent to the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi.
