JUDGMENT : I.M. Quddusi, A.C.J. 1. This application has been moved by the Petitioner ISS Construction, a partnership firm, invoking jurisdiction of this Court u/s 11 (6) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 to appoint an arbitrator. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner is a partnership firm having expertise in construction of roads & it has undertaken & successfully completed number of Government & Semi-Government works. The Opposite Party which is a Maharashtra based company claims to have undertaken major construction projects in the country. Government of Orissa floated tender for construction of Cuttack-Paradeep road & the Opposite Party was awarded with the construction of a stretch of 43 Kms of the said road. After obtaining the contract, it entered into sub-contract with three contractors including the Petitioner which was entrusted with construction of the road from 13/000 Kms to 28/000 Kms. The work entrusted to the Petitioner involved construction of embankment with sand or earth, laying of sub grade & topping of with granular sub base so as to improve two lanes rigid pavement carriage with paved shoulders of 1.5 Mts. on both sides along with C.D.(Cross Drainage) works in the allotted stretch of 15 KMs. For this purpose an agreement was executed between the Petitioner & Opposite Party at Cuttack on 11.9.2007. As per the terms of the agreement, the Petitioner was required to carry out the construction work as per the plans prepared & supplied by the Opposite Party. It was agreed that the work would be completed within a period of seven months. The Opposite Party promised to reward the Petitioner with 0.5% to a maximum of 1.0% of the final bill as bonus for timely completion of the work. Therefore, time was essence of the contract. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the terms of the contract between the State & the Opposite Party was not known to the Petitioner & even after Petitioner's insistence to know the same, Opposite Party avoided to disclose the same. Opposite Party paid a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 to the Petitioner as mobilization advance & to secure the amount, Petitioner furnished a bank guarantee of Union Bank of India for Rs. 40,00,000 in favour of the Opposite Party for a period of one year. As per the agreement, Opposite Party was required to pay the running bills every month. Opposite Party paid a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 to the Petitioner as mobilization advance & to secure the amount, Petitioner furnished a bank guarantee of Union Bank of India for Rs. 40,00,000 in favour of the Opposite Party for a period of one year. As per the agreement, Opposite Party was required to pay the running bills every month. The Opposite Party was required to clear the bill within 7 days from the date of its receipt. Such bills were to be prepared after measurement made/certified by the Opposite Party. The Petitioner was required to work according to the schedule prepared & given by the Planning Department of the Opposite Party. The schedule of work was not given to the Petitioner in time & only verbal instructions were given based on which the Petitioner proceeded to execute the work. The first schedule was given to the Petitioner in March, 2008 by which time the work had progressed substantially. Though the Petitioner was assigned construction of 15 Kms stretch, no clear stretch was provided to it & it was asked to begin work only with 4 Kms stretch, i.e. from 24/000 to 28/000 Kms. Which was handed over to it. Since the Petitioner had mobilized men & machinery for completing the assigned stretch of 15 Kms. within the schedule time, a lot of inconvenience was caused to the Petitioner as it was handed over only a stretch of 4 Kms to work on. After starting execution of the work, the Petitioner discovered that the original ground level was not fit for work, As it was slushy, the Petitioner had to prepare the ground by engaging excavators to remove the loose earth & slush & achieve the initial ground level which would be fit for laying the embankment. Since the same was beyond the scope of work entrusted to the Petitioner & was carried out on the verbal instruction of Mr. V.K. Chopra, the Managing Director of the Opposite Party who issued necessary instruction after personally inspecting the site, the Petitioner wanted a supplementary work order to be issued. The Petitioner was, however, advised to proceed with the work without waiting for such supplementary work order. The Opposite Party had also promised to bear the cost of the extra work to be executed by the Petitioner. The Petitioner was, however, advised to proceed with the work without waiting for such supplementary work order. The Opposite Party had also promised to bear the cost of the extra work to be executed by the Petitioner. The work commenced in 1st week of November, 2007 but the Petitioner faced numerous hurdles which were brought to the notice of the Opposite Party & on the verbal assurances of the Project Manager, the Petitioner went on doing the preliminary ground clearing work. However, no plans/specification, drawing etc. were provided by the Opposite Party so as to enable the Petitioner to complete the work within the time stipulated. The Petitioner by letter dated 3.1.2008 (Annexure-2) intimated the Opposite Party the impediments it was facing in executing the work & the fact that it had not received drawings for the Hume pipes, culverts & the slab culverts so also the methodology for earth work. The Opposite Party did not take any action on the representation made by the Petitioner. On the contrary, it issued a fresh schedule & scope of work & forced the Petitioner to complete the work as per the new schedule. Though the work order was given in September, 2007, the work started in November, 2007 upon receipt of initial verbal instruction from Opposite Party out proper utilization of machinery could only be done in February, 2008. As the site was not handed over till then nor were the drawing & specifications in its entirety supplied, the Petitioner could only do the basic work of clearing the ground. Petitioner received payment of the first bill on 15.3.2008. The Petitioner continued with the work as per schedule though the Opposite Party did not supply the required document &, therefore, the progress of work could not be achieved at the pace so as to be completed as per schedule. After completion of the embankment the Petitioner was required to lay the sub-grade over the embankment. Laying of the sub-grade is of paramount importance as it had to withstand the heavy traffic that the road would be subjected to. Originally, it was contemplated that laying of sub-grade would be through earth only which was required to be compacted. After completion of the embankment the Petitioner was required to lay the sub-grade over the embankment. Laying of the sub-grade is of paramount importance as it had to withstand the heavy traffic that the road would be subjected to. Originally, it was contemplated that laying of sub-grade would be through earth only which was required to be compacted. Subsequently Opposite Party No. 1 in consultation with the State Government wanted that the sub-grade would be a mixture of sand & moram in the ratio of 50:50 which was later changed to the ratio of 67:33. Such a change had financial implications for which the Petitioner informed Opposite Party that the price had to be revised to Rs. 526.00 per cubic meter. Though the Opp. Party had verbally assured the Petitioner that he would be duly compensated for the extra price implication on account of the sub-grade but in the statement furnished to the Petitioner the rate of sub-grade (i.e. earth) initially calculated at Rs. 310 per cubic meter was subsequently revised to Rs. 360 per cubic meter. During execution of the work, there was increase in the price of petrol & diesel for which the Petitioner faced difficulties to mobilize machineries to work site. On 9.6.2008, the Petitioner requested the Opposite Parties to pay the running bills in time & at the same time, pay the differential escalation price, but to no effect. Thereafter, the Petitioner requested Opposite Parties to extend the time for completion of work, who in turn asked the Petitioner to furnish certain information & particulars for extension of time. After a lapse of four months, the Opposite Party extended the time till 31.5.2009. therefore, the delay was due to the negligence & indifference of the Opp. Party. Although the time was extended for no fault of the Petitioner but Opposite Party required the Petitioner to extend the bank guarantee for a further period of one year because of which the Petitioner incurred unnecessary expenses of lakhs of rupees for processing the same. The Petitioner requested the Opp. Party to release a sum of Rs. 39.65 lakhs for the work already done by it but the said request did not yield any result. While the request of the Petitioner for measurement & payment remained unheeded, the Opposite Party insisted upon expeditious execution of the work & at times beyond the scope of work allotted to it. Party to release a sum of Rs. 39.65 lakhs for the work already done by it but the said request did not yield any result. While the request of the Petitioner for measurement & payment remained unheeded, the Opposite Party insisted upon expeditious execution of the work & at times beyond the scope of work allotted to it. The Petitioner went on carrying out the instructions with a view to complete the work early in order to have early release of payments. On 31.10.2008, the Petitioner was served with a statement of account from which it was found that the same had been prepared in a manner so as to defeat his legitimate claim for the work which he did pursuant to the verbal instruction issued to him. The extra work & the changed specification involving extra expenditure had not been taken into account though the Opposite Party had claimed escalated price & obtained it from the Government. Such escalation cost was not passed on to the Petitioner thereby causing it huge loss. Even though the Opposite Party was aware that earth had never been used as sub-grade, the calculation had been based on the basis of rate for earth work. Though the Petitioner had categorically made it clear to the Opposite Party that it would not be possible to execute the sub-grade work at a rate less than Rs. 448.00 per cubic meter, the Opposite Party had calculated the same at the rate of Rs. 310.00 per cubic meter when it was insisted that the sub-grade work was to be done with moram & sand at the ratio of 50:50. Certain deductions were also made illegally. By letter dated 3.11.2008., the Petitioner requested the Opposite Party to correct the statement so as to reflect the actual state of affairs on receipt of which assurance was given that correction would be made & corrected statement would be supplied to him which was never done. Therefore, the Petitioner has reasons to believe that such distorted incorrect statement was deliberately prepared to defeat the claims of the Petitioner & to cause it irretrievable loss & unjust enrichment to the Opp. Party. Although the Opp. Party has claimed much higher rate from the State Government, it does not intend to pass on such enhanced payment to the Petitioner. Party. Although the Opp. Party has claimed much higher rate from the State Government, it does not intend to pass on such enhanced payment to the Petitioner. The statement also showed deduction On account of salaries paid to Senior Engineers, Junior Engineers & Supervisors who are employees of Opposite Party. Such deduction was beyond the scope & terms of the contract. Thereafter the Petitioner furnished a clarification giving details of the work done in executing the project. In order to make a solid base for construction, the site was required to be filled up with sand & on getting permission from Mr. V.K. Chopra, M.D. of the Opposite Party, the Petitioner filled the area with sand to make it ready for laying the gravel which is the basic ingredients for making the road. The Petitioner intimated that the measurement had been taken from the original ground level & not from the initial ground level even though Opposite Party was aware of the same. The Opposite Party claimed payments from Government for work done from the initial ground level. The Petitioner has been paid (c) Rs. 310.00 instead of Rs. 448.00 per cubic meter for the sub grade work. The Petitioner was entitled to be paid Rs. 526.00 in view of the changed specification while executing the sub-grade work. Again another statement was served on the Petitioner in February, 2009 of the work done as on 31.12.2008. Though in the initial statement, the rate of sub grade work was calculated at Rs. 310.00 per cubic meter in the later statement the same was revised to Rs. 360.00 unilaterally without any reference to the Petitioner. The later statement supplied in February, 2009 did not contain the correct state of affairs. In the first statement, Opposite Party claimed recovery of Rs. 33,17,909.98. Thereafter the Petitioner executed some more work during the next two months without being paid anything but curiously the amount of recovery rose to Rs. 88, 84, 449.41. On protest raised by the Petitioner, the Opposite Party revised the statement reducing the amount of recovery to Rs. 47, 38, 665.00. This shows that the Opposite Party is trying to exploit the Petitioner financially by playing fraud. Petitioner's repeated request for measurement of the work already executed by him has not yet been accepted by the Opposite Party. On protest raised by the Petitioner, the Opposite Party revised the statement reducing the amount of recovery to Rs. 47, 38, 665.00. This shows that the Opposite Party is trying to exploit the Petitioner financially by playing fraud. Petitioner's repeated request for measurement of the work already executed by him has not yet been accepted by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party has played fraud & mischief by artificially enhancing the prices & illegally charging the same from the Petitioner. The illegal & absurd calculation smacks of fraud & malice on the part of the Opposite Party. There is great variance of the quantities of work done & the quantities calculated. Though the Petitioner has not been paid his. bills since April, 2008, ho is being served with erroneous statements one after the other. Therefore, by letter dated 28.1.2009 the Petitioner requested the Opp. Party that measurement of the work done be taken & be he paid his dues. Though the said letter was received by the Opp. Party on 10,2.2009, it has not taken any steps for doing the measurement. As the dues was not paid, the Petitioner was not able to make payment to his workers & therefore had to withdraw from the site. As the Petitioner suffered from irreparable injury due to non-payment of dues in time, by letter dated 24.2.2009 intimated the Opp. Party that as despite repeated requests his claims are not being paid a dispute had arisen between the parties & the Petitioner is entitled to receive Rs. 3,21,421,09.82. Therefore, it request for referring the dispute to arbitration for adjudication as there was no scope and/or avenue left open for amicable settlement of disputes. Opp. Party ignored the claim & on 4.3.20.09 served a letter dated 23.2.2009 on the Petitioner again raising a claim of Rs. 91,45,365.60 & surreptitiously approached the Bank & attempted to encash the bank guarantee furnished by the Petitioner. Petitioner apprehending foul play approached the Learned District Judge, Cuttack for restraining the Opp. Party from encashing the bank guarantee & the Learned District Judge, Cuttack by Order Dated 31.7.2009 restrained the Opp. Party from encashing the bank guarantee till disposal of the arbitration proceeding. When the matter stood thus, the Petitioner received two registered letters posted from College Square Post Office on 8.4.2009. In one letter Sri Gulshan Chopra, Director of the Opp. Party from encashing the bank guarantee & the Learned District Judge, Cuttack by Order Dated 31.7.2009 restrained the Opp. Party from encashing the bank guarantee till disposal of the arbitration proceeding. When the matter stood thus, the Petitioner received two registered letters posted from College Square Post Office on 8.4.2009. In one letter Sri Gulshan Chopra, Director of the Opp. Party, has intimated the Petitioner that by invoking clause 16 of the agreement, they have appointed Mr. V.K. Chopra as the Arbitrator. The other letter was sent by Sri V.K. Chopra intimating the Petitioner that he has already assumed jurisdiction as an arbitrator & fixed the meeting to 24.4.2009. The case of the Petitioner is that its letter dated 1.4.2009 sent by fax invoking clause 11 of the agreement proposing the name of retired High Court Judge has not yet been disputed by the Opp. Party. He has submitted that the contract was executed at Cuttack, the local office of the Opp. Party is situated within the jurisdiction of Cuttack so also the work is to be executed within Cuttack jurisdiction. The Opp. Party has entered into the agreement with Orissa Government. Hence, the Cuttack Court has jurisdiction to arbitrate the dispute between the parties. As no part of the cause of action has taken place in Mumbai, the parties even by consent cannot clothe the Court with jurisdiction since it has none. Since Mr. V.K. Chopra is the M.D. of the Opp. Party & has instructed the Petitioner from time to time to execute the work, he cannot give a just & impartial decision in the case. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed this petition invoking jurisdiction of this Court u/s 11 (6) of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator. 3. Since the Opposite Party on putting appearance has raised a preliminary objection that this Court has no jurisdiction to appoint arbitrator in view of the agreement signed by the Petitioner as well as the Opposite Party which is binding on both of them, before taking up any other point, it is necessary to deal with that point in view of the agreement relied upon by both parties. 4. In the counter affidavit, it has been averred that the Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hand & has suppressed material facts. It is stated that pursuant to clause 16 of the agreement, the Opp. 4. In the counter affidavit, it has been averred that the Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hand & has suppressed material facts. It is stated that pursuant to clause 16 of the agreement, the Opp. Party has appointed Mr. V.K. Chopra as the sole arbitrator who has already entered into the reference & the Petitioner has challenged his impartiality which is pending for decision before the arbitrator. The Petitioner vide Annexure-5 requested the Opposite Party for amicable settlement of the dispute raised by it but due to the stubborn attitude of the Petitioner no settlement could be reached. Therefore, the Opposite Party invoked the arbitration clause & referred the matter to Mr. V.K. Chopra & the appointment having been made in accordance with Section 11 (2) r/w Section 11 (8) of the Act, the present petition is thoroughly misconceived. The disability pleaded by the Petitioner in the petition if taken in toto, the same can at best be adjudged as a challenge u/s 12(3) of the Act & can only be adjudicated by the arbitrator himself for which the present petition is not maintainable. It is further stated that in view of clause 17 of the agreement which provided that any dispute between them would be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Mumbai &, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Petitioner's application. The original of the cause of action had accrued by issuance of letter of intent dated 18.5.2007 from Mumbai. Hence although the subsequent documentation & communication were made from the Cuttack branch office of the Opp. Party, it cannot be held that the Courts at Cuttack alone have jurisdiction to decide the dispute. It is their further case that the Courts at Cuttack & Mumbai have jurisdiction as part of cause of action has arisen in both the laces. Referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court that where two or more Courts have under the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction to try a suit or a proceeding, an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy, the Opp. Referring to the law laid down by the Apex Court that where two or more Courts have under the Code of Civil Procedure, jurisdiction to try a suit or a proceeding, an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy, the Opp. Party has contended that in view of clause 17 of the agreement wherein the parties have consciously ousted the jurisdiction of the Courts at Cuttack, they can only approach the Court at Bombay &, therefore, this petition is not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. The facts mentioned in the different paragraphs of the petition have either been denied as untrue & false or twisted. Be that as it may, in view of the preliminary objection raised by the Opposite Parties, I do not think it necessary to mention in details the averments of the Opp. Party with regard to the facts mentioned in the petition paragraph-wise. 5. The agreement was executed by both the parties on 11.9.2007. Clause 17 of the agreement relates to jurisdiction which is reproduced as under: All disputes, difference arising out of, connected with and/or in any way related with this Contract and/or interpretations of any of the clause contained therein and/or conforming part of the Contract shall be subject to exclusive jurisdiction of the Court at Mumbai exclusive. Clause 16 of the said agreement relates to Arbitration. The said clause reads as under: All disputes or differences and/or claims between the parties hereto arising out of & or concerning and/or in connection with and/or in consequence of and/or relating to this Agreement shall be settled mutually & amicably between the two parties at the work site. In case of non agreement the decision of Director M/s. Niraj Cement Structurasl Ltd. Shall be final & binding. However, in case of dispute, the work shall not be delayed or stopped & continued diligently pending settlement of the dispute. In case of stoppage of work other than disputed, we reserve the right to terminate the contract & you shall have no claims on this regard & balance work shall be completed by the employer at your risk & cost. In the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. In case of stoppage of work other than disputed, we reserve the right to terminate the contract & you shall have no claims on this regard & balance work shall be completed by the employer at your risk & cost. In the case of A.B.C. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs. A.P. Agencies, Salem the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: Section 28 of the contract Act, 1872 provides that every agreement by which any party thereto is restricted absolutely from enforcing his rights under or in respect of any contract, by the usual legal proceedings in the ordinary tribunal, or which limits the time within which he may thus enforce his rights, is void to that extent. This is subject to exceptions, namely, (1) contract to refer to arbitration & to abide by its award, (2) as a matter of commercial law & practice to submit disputes on or in respect of the contract to agreed proper jurisdiction & not other jurisdictions though proper. The principle of Private International Law that the parties should be bound by the jurisdiction clause to which they have agreed unless there is some reason to contrary is being applied to municipal contracts. In Lee v. Showmen's Guild (1952) 1 All ER 1175 at p.1181 Lord Denning said: Parties cannot be contract oust the ordinary Courts from their jurisdiction. They can, of course, agree to leave questions of law, as well as questions of fact, to the decision of the domestic tribunal. They can, indeed, make the tribunal the final arbiter on questions of fact, but they cannot make it the final arbiter on questions of law. They cannot prevent its decisions being examined by the Courts. If parties should seek, by agreement, to take the law out of the hands of the Courts & put it into the hands of private tribunal, without any recourse at all to the Courts in cases of error of law, then the agreement is to that extent contrary to public policy & void. 10. u/s 23 of the Contract Act the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is opposed to public policy. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void. Hence there can be no doubt that an agreement to oust absolutely the jurisdiction of the Court will be unlawful & void being against the public policy. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void. Hence there can be no doubt that an agreement to oust absolutely the jurisdiction of the Court will be unlawful & void being against the public policy. Ex dolo malo nona oritur action. If therefore it is found in this case that Clause 11 has absolutely ousted the jurisdiction of the Court it would be against public policy. However, such will be the result only if it can be shown that the jurisdiction to which the parties have agreed to submit had nothing to do with the contract. If on the other hand it is found that the jurisdiction agreed would also be a proper jurisdiction in the matter of the contract it could not be said that it ousted the jurisdiction of the Court. This leads to the question in the facts of this case as to whether Kaira would be proper jurisdiction in the matter of this contract. It would also be relevant to examine if some other Courts than that of Kaira would also have had jurisdiction in the absence of Clause 11 & whether that would amount to ouster of jurisdiction of those Courts & would thereby affect the validity of the clause. 11. The jurisdiction of the Court in matter of a contract will depend on the situs of the contract & the cause of action arising through connecting factors. The Apex Court further held as under: 16. So long as the parties to a contract do not oust the jurisdiction of all the Courts which would otherwise have jurisdiction to decide the cause of action under the law it cannot be said that the parties have by their contract ousted the jurisdiction of the Court. If under the law several Courts would have jurisdiction & the parties have agreed to submit to one of these jurisdictions & not to other or others of them it cannot be said that there is total ouster of jurisdiction. In other words, where the parties to a contract agreed to submit the disputes arising from it to a particular jurisdiction which would otherwise also be a proper jurisdiction under the law their agreement to the extent they agreed not to submit to other jurisdictions cannot be said to be void as against public policy. In other words, where the parties to a contract agreed to submit the disputes arising from it to a particular jurisdiction which would otherwise also be a proper jurisdiction under the law their agreement to the extent they agreed not to submit to other jurisdictions cannot be said to be void as against public policy. If on the other hand the jurisdiction they agreed to submit to would not otherwise be proper jurisdiction to decide disputes arising out of the contract it must be declared void being against public policy. Would this be the position in the instant case? In the case of Hakam Sing Vs. Gammon (India) Ltd. it has been held that the CPC in its entirety applies to proceedings under the Arbitration Act. The jurisdiction of the Courts under the Arbitration Act to entertain a proceeding for filing an award is accordingly governed by the provisions of the CPC. By Clause 13 of the agreement it was expressly stipulated between the parties that the contract shall be deemed to have been entered into by the parties concerned in the City of Bombay. In any event the Respondent have their principal office in Bombay & they were liable in respect of a cause of action arising under the terms of the tender to be sued in the Courts at Bombay. It is not open to the parties by agreement to confer jurisdiction on a Court which it does not possess under the Code. But where two or more. Courts have under the CPC jurisdiction to try a suit or proceeding an agreement between the parties that the dispute between them shall be tried in one of such Courts is not contrary to public policy. Such an agreement does not contravene Section 28 of. the Contract Act. In the case of Nanak Chand v. T.T. Elect. Supply Co., the Madras High Court observed that competency of a Court to try an action goes to the root of the matter & when such competency is not found, it has no jurisdiction at all to try the case. But objection based on jurisdiction is a matter which parties could waive & it is in this sense if such jurisdiction is exercised by Courts it does not go to the core of it so as to make the resultant Judgment a nullity. But objection based on jurisdiction is a matter which parties could waive & it is in this sense if such jurisdiction is exercised by Courts it does not go to the core of it so as to make the resultant Judgment a nullity. It is a settled principle that where there may be two or more competent Courts which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of the causes action having arisen there within, if the parties to the contract agree to vest jurisdiction in one such Court to try the dispute which might arise as between themselves, the agreement would be valid. If such a contract is clear, unambiguous & explicit & not vague, it is not hit by Sections 23 & 28 of the Contract Act. This cannot be understood as parties contracting against the Statute Merchantile Law & practice permits such agreements. In the case of M/s. Angile Insulations Vs. M/s. Davy Ashmore India Ltd. and another the Apex Court held as under: 9. Clause 17 says- any legal proceedings arising out of the order shall be subject to the jurisdiction of the Courts in Mumbai. The clause is no doubt not qualified by the words like 'alone', 'only' or 'exclusively'. Therefore, what is Jo be seen is whether in the facts & circumstances, of the present case, it can be inferred that the jurisdiction of all other Courts except Courts in Mumbai is excluded. Having regard to the fact that the order was placed by the Defendant at Bombay, the said order was accepted by the branch office of the Plaintiff at Bombay, the advance payment was made by the Defendant at Bombay, there was a clear intention to confine the jurisdiction of the Courts in Bombay to the exclusion of all other Courts. The Court of Additional District Judge, Delhi had, therefore, no territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. In my view, the contract deed entered into & signed by the parties is binding on them to the extent they are not contrary to law. In the instant case, the contract in question between the parties contained a clause relating to jurisdiction which cannot be termed as against public policy & the terms of the contract estopped the parties from raising contrary plea. 6. In the instant case, the contract in question between the parties contained a clause relating to jurisdiction which cannot be termed as against public policy & the terms of the contract estopped the parties from raising contrary plea. 6. The next point raised by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that in Clause-11 of the work order, it has been mentioned that Sri V.K. Chopra, the Chairman & Managing Director of the Opposite Party will be arbitrator & his decision shall be final & binding on both the parties. Since I have already held that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition at this stage, it is futile to consider this clause. The Petitioner may approach the competent Court & may file petition before the Bombay High Court & may raise this plea, if he is so advised. This petition shall be returned to the Petitioners for proper presentation.