1. The petitioner raises the question of jurisdiction of this Court to entertain
the application, on two grounds:-
(a) The overall jurisdiction clause ousts the seat. The parties agreed that
courts at New Delhi alone, shall have the jurisdiction to entertain and
try all actions, suits and proceedings arising out of those presents.
The seat of arbitration shall be superseded by the ouster clause.
(b) The petitioner does not have the locus to invoke arbitration as the
agreement was between the petitioner and Srei Finance Equipment
Limited (SFIL).
2
2. Mr. Swatarup Banerjee, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that
by virtue of the business transfer agreement, the petitioner had stepped
into the shoes of SIFL and the said business transfer agreement was
brought to the notice of the respondent. It is further contended that this
Court has jurisdiction in view of the selection of the seat. The arbitration
agreement provides that the dispute shall be referred to arbitration which
shall be governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the
seat of arbitration would be Kolkata. The cause of action also arose within
the jurisdiction of this Court. The clause relating to ouster of jurisdiction
is overridden by the agreement between the parties to hold the arbitration
in Kolkata.