A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 2(1)(e), 11(6), 20, 31, 42 – Appointment of Arbitrator – Jurisdiction – Cause of action -- Definition of ‘Court’ -- High Court does not fall within definition of Court as defined under Section 2 (1) (e) of 1996 Act -- High Court gets jurisdiction u/s 11(6) where principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction has jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of arbitration, had the same been the subject matter of suit -- Cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of principal Civil Court at Karnal (Haryana) --  Contention of respondent that as per arbitration agreement, Mumbai Court has exclusive jurisdiction – Held, Court at Karnal (Haryana) as well as Mumbai has jurisdiction in term of Section 2(1)(e) read with Section 20 of 1996 Act -- As Civil Court at Karnal (Haryana) has jurisdiction to entertain dispute in question, Punjab and Haryana High Court has jurisdiction to entertain application under Section 11 (6) of 1996 Act.

(Para 11-22)

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (26 of 1996), Section 11(6), 20, 31, 42 -- Appointment of Arbitrator – Place of Arbitration -- High Court at Chandigarh makes appointment of an Arbitrator -- Both the parties are having their offices at Delhi -- Arbitrator, after his appointment by High Court, may fix place of arbitration at New Delhi because said place may be convenient to both the parties -- In this situation, despite appointment of arbitrator by Punjab and Haryana High Court, the place of arbitration would be ‘New Delhi’.

(Para 13)