Judgment :- This Original Application has been filed for the grant of an interim order, by way of interim protection, prohibiting the respondents from delivering the negatives or any release print of the Hindi Cinematograph film titled "Sun Zarra" and releasing any print of the said here in the world in any form whatsoever pending disposal of the arbitration on proceedings contemplated between the applicant and the 1st respondent. 2. The applicant is a public limited company engaged in the business of The registered office of the applicant is at Mumbai. The 1st respondent approached the applicant to render financial assistance for a sum of lakhs for producing a Hindi film "Chand Sa Roshan Chehra". A finance to dated 19.2.2005 was entered into between the applicant and the 1st respondent. As per the agreement dated 19.2.2005, the 1st respondent assigned Copyright of the Whole World Satellite Television exclusive ting tights, Overseas Satellite Television for multiple telecasts and TV rights for a period of five years in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.75 lakhs was paid by the applicant to the 1st respondent on 19.2.2005. After receiving the entire amount of Rs.75 lakhs, the 1st respondent committed serious breach of the agreement. As the agreement contained an arbitration clause, the applicant-Company has filed this O.A. under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for the aforesaid relief. 3. Telegraphic notice was ordered by this Court on 20.2.2006 and the matter was posted to 22.2-2006 for further hearing. On 22.2.2006 the respondents entered appearance through counsel. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this O.A. on the ground of want of jurisdiction. 4. I heard the learned counsel appeared on either side. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant while reiterating the averments made in the affidavit contended that as per Section 62 of the Copyright Act, a suit would have been filed for infringement of copyright as the applicant is having office in Chennai also. Further, violation of the film assignment agreement by the 1st respondent amounts to infringement of the copyright assignment assigned in favour of the applicant. In such circumstances, the applicant can maintain a suit before this Court. Further, violation of the film assignment agreement by the 1st respondent amounts to infringement of the copyright assignment assigned in favour of the applicant. In such circumstances, the applicant can maintain a suit before this Court. If that be so, this O.A. filed under Section 9 of the Act is not maintainable as per Clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act. 6. I have given my due consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant and the views expressed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. On a perusal of the affidavit and the documents filed along with this O.A., I find that the film assignment agreement for the assignment of the film 'Chand Sa Roshan Chehra' was executed in Mumbai on 19.2.2005 between the applicant and the 1st respondent. The financial arrangement of Rs.75 lakhs was also made by the applicant by way of cheque drawn on I.O.B., Isckon Branch, Juhu, Mumbai-400 049. The applicant company the 1st respondent company are situated in Mumbai. So is the case of the 2nd respondent. The subject-matter of the dispute also, namely, the copyrights of the Hindi film has to be produced in Mumbai. In such circumstances, I do not find any cause of action or part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Clause 12 of the financial agreement dated 19.2.2005 deals with reference of any dispute to arbitration and the venue of arbitration is Mumbai. Further, as per Section 2(1)(e) of the Act 26 of 1996, Court jurisdiction is the Court having jurisdiction to determine the question forming the subject matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject- matter of a suit. The jurisdiction of the Court is made dependent solely on the subject-matter of the dispute. In this case, the subject-matter of the dispute has arisen in Mumbai. Hence, I am of the opinion that this O.A. filed under Section 9 of the Act before this Court cannot be maintained for want of jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of the Court is made dependent solely on the subject-matter of the dispute. In this case, the subject-matter of the dispute has arisen in Mumbai. Hence, I am of the opinion that this O.A. filed under Section 9 of the Act before this Court cannot be maintained for want of jurisdiction. When the provisions of the Act is very clear in regard to jurisdiction, any application filed under Section 9 of the Act is to be decided only with reference to those provisions of the other Act, and not with reference to the provisions of the other Act like Copyright Act as contended by the learned counsel for the applicant. Even otherwise, the relief sought for cannot be granted for the simple reason that the finance agreement dated 19.2.2005 entered into between the applicant and the first respondent is for the production of Hindi film "Chand Sa Roshan Chehra". But the prohibitory order has been sought for to prohibit the respondents from releasing the print of the Hindi Cinematograph film 'Sun Zarra", for which there is no agreement between the applicant and the 1st respondent. If the prayer is granted, not only this Court would go outside the subject-matter of the agreement entered into between third parties in suit who are not before this Court. 9. Therefore, there is no prima facie case made out by the applicant. On this ground also, I am not inclined to grant the relief as sought for. Accordingly, O.A.No.123/2006 is dismissed.