ORDER This application has been filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. After appearance objection has been filed on behalf of the opposite parties. The opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection relating to jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the petition. They have relied upon Clause 11 of the Agreement which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the petition. Clause 11 states that "all cases of action arising and of under this agreement shall be subject to the jurisdiction of Courts situated in Calcutta only" 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the decision of this Court reported in M/s. Ajanta Enterprises v. Hoechst Pharmaceutical Ltd. (AIR 1987 Orissa 34.). In the aforesaid decision, Clause 7 of the Agreement was as follows : "All disputes arising out of this agreement shall, falling arbitration, be litigated in Courts having jurisdiction in greater Bombay. Interpreting this clause, it was observed that jurisdiction of Cuttack Court to entertain the suit was not completely oustead. It was emphasized that in the agreement was not mentioned that the jurisdiction was in Greater Bombay "only" or "alone". As such, the aforesaid decision is distinguishable and cannot be of any assistance to the petitioner in the present case, as it has been indicated in the agreement in the present case that all cases shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court in Calcutta "only". 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also relied upon the decision reported in Patel Roadways Ltd., Bombay v. M/s. Prasad Trading Company ( AIR 1992 SC 1514 .), where considering the scope of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was held that the suit can be filed at a place where the Corporation had branch office. In the said case, there was no exclusionary clause, nor there was any clause that the cases shall be filed in a particular place only. As such the aforesaid decision is not applicable. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, places reliance on the decision reported in Zamindara Engineering Company v. M/s. Sunil Tractor Company ( AIR 1992 SC 1545 = 1992(2) Arb. LR 279.). As such the aforesaid decision is not applicable. 4. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, places reliance on the decision reported in Zamindara Engineering Company v. M/s. Sunil Tractor Company ( AIR 1992 SC 1545 = 1992(2) Arb. LR 279.). In the aforesaid decision, the relevant Clause 11(ii) was as follows : "Subject to the provisions of arbitration hereafter detailed any legal proceeding arising out of or in connection with or rateable to this agreement of the sub-dealership in the terms hereof shall be filed before the Court of competent Civil Jurisdiction at Fazilka and the jurisdiction of the other Courts to entertain and decide such proceedings is hereby expressly excluded." Relying upon the aforesaid provision, it was held by the Supreme Court that the jurisdiction was confined to the Courts at Fazilka and other Courts did not have jurisdiction. According to me, the aforesaid decision is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. As such this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the application. Accordingly, the application is to be returned to the petitioner for presenting the same before the proper Court having jurisdiction. Two weeks' time is allowed to the petitioner to take return of the documents and to present the same before the proper Court. The M.J.C. is accordingly disposed of. No costs. Ordered accordingly. *-*-*-*-*