ORDER 1. As both these applications are filed under section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the' Act') and as the arbitration agreements in both cases are common, both these applications are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, documents and pleadings in Arbitration Case No. 54/2011 are being referred to in this order. 2. M/s. Vodafone Essar Spacetel Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, and having its registered office in New Delhi and a circle office in Bhopal entered into two agreements with the respondent company. The agreement in question were executed at Bhopal on 15.4.2008 and 19.5.2008, Annexures A/2 and A/3 respectively. Both the agreements pertain to granting contract to M/s. Abhiyaan Logistics for establishment of a warehouse facility for M/s. Vodafone Essare Spacetel Limited. In execution of the agreements, it is said that proper payments was not made to the company i.e............M/s. Abhiyaan Logistics and, therefore, they raised various claims. However, it was the case of M/s. Vodafone Essar Spacetel Limited that the services rendered by the company i.e......M/s. Abhiyaan Logistics, was not proper and certain disputes in this regard were initiated in the Civil Court having jurisdiction at Bhopal under section 9. Thereafter, the warehouse company namely – M/s. Abhiyaan Logistics, sought for appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of the dispute in view of the arbitration agreement contained in the agreement dated 15.4.2008, entered into between the parties for establishment of warehouse facility at Bhopal. In the application submitted M/s. Abhiyaan Logistics requested for appointment of a particular person as an arbitrator. M/s. Vodafone Essar Spacetel Limited even though agreed for appointment of an arbitrator, indicated that they would like the arbitration to be undertaken by another person. As there was difference of opinion between the parties with regard to the arbitrator, both these applications have been filed under section 11 (6) of the Act. 3.Case No. 57/2011 is filed by M/s. Abhiyaan Logistics seeking appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of the dispute arising out of the agreement i.e........agreement dated 15.4.2008 with regard to establishment of warehouse facility at Bhopal. 3.Case No. 57/2011 is filed by M/s. Abhiyaan Logistics seeking appointment of an arbitrator for resolution of the dispute arising out of the agreement i.e........agreement dated 15.4.2008 with regard to establishment of warehouse facility at Bhopal. As far as Case No. 54/2011 is concerned, it is an application filed by M/s. Vodafone Essar Spacetel Limited seeking constitution of an arbitral Tribunal with regard to the dispute arising out of both the agreements dated 15.4.2008 and 19.5.2008 i.e..........for the purpose of establishment of the warehouse facility at Bhopal and Raipur. Shri Brian D'Silva, learned senior Advocate, appearing for M/s. Vodafone Essar Spacetel Limited, argued that as there is dispute between the parties the arbitrator be appointment as per the arbitration agreement with regard to both the disputes. Shri Y.R. Rao, learned Senior Advocate appearing for M/s. Abhiyaan Logistics, raised objection to the effect that with regard to the agreement pertaining to establishment of warehouse facility at Bhopal this Court had jurisdiction in the matter, but with regard to establishment of the warehouse at Raipur i.e........ vide agreement, dated 19.5.2008, it is stated by him that it is only the High Court of the State of Chhattisgarh, which will have jurisdiction and not this Court. Shri Brian D'Silva, learned Senior Advocate refutes the aforesaid and invites my attention to the provisions of the arbitration agreement i.e..........Clause 19, of both the agreements. Clause 19, of both the agreements, read as under: "XIX ARBITRATION In the event of any dispute or difference arising from this Agreement, the same shall, unless mutually settled, be referred to the Arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the parties. The arbitration proceedings shall be in English language and the place of arbitration shall be at Bhopal." Accordingly, it is the case of the company M/s. Vodafone Essar Spacetel Limited that as parties have agreed to have the arbitration within the territorial limits of the Court at Bhopal, this Court has jurisdiction in the matter. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that there are two agreements. The first agreement is dated 15.4.2008 and is known as the 'Bhopal Agreement' for the purpose of establishment of warehouse facility at Bhopal. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that there are two agreements. The first agreement is dated 15.4.2008 and is known as the 'Bhopal Agreement' for the purpose of establishment of warehouse facility at Bhopal. The second agreement is dated 19.5.2008 known as the' Raipur Agreement' for the establishment of warehouse facility at Raipur. Both the agreements are executed at Bhopal on 15.4.2008 and 19.5.2008, and the work was to be done at Bhopal and Raipur respectively. As far as the Bhopal Agreement is concerned, there is no difficulty with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. The only dispute is as to who should be the arbitrator. Parties agree that the dispute has to be resolved by arbitration and, therefore, this Court is only required to constitute an arbitral Tribunal for resolution of this dispute arising out of the Bhopal Agreement. 6. As far as the Raipur agreement is concerned, the question is as to whether this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter in view of the objection raised by Shri Y.R. Rao, learned senior Advocate for M/s. Abhiyaan Logistics. It is a settled principle of law that a Court where the cause of action in part or whole arises can have jurisdiction to deal with the matter and if two or more Courts have jurisdiction to deal with the matter, parties by agreement can confer jurisdiction on one of the Courts and if such a jurisdiction is confirmed, parties are bound by the agreement. However, it is also equally well settled that parties by agreement cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court which lacks jurisdiction to deal with the matter in view of section 56 of the Indian Contract Act. See: New Moga Transport Company v. United India Insurance Company Limited and others. (2004) 4 SCC 677 ; Shree Subhlaxmi Fabrics (P) Limited v. Chand Mal Bamdia and others, (2005) 10 SCC 704 ; and, Progressive Career Academy Private Limited, Jabalpur and another v. Fiitjee Limited. New Delhi and others. 2006 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 170 = (2006) 1 MPLJ 347 . 7. In the present case, admittedly Raipur Agreement even though is for establishment of a warehouse facility in Raipur, the agreement was entered into at Bhopal on 19.5.2008 as is evident from Annexure A/3. New Delhi and others. 2006 (2) Vidhi Bhasvar 170 = (2006) 1 MPLJ 347 . 7. In the present case, admittedly Raipur Agreement even though is for establishment of a warehouse facility in Raipur, the agreement was entered into at Bhopal on 19.5.2008 as is evident from Annexure A/3. The Raipur Agreement, which clearly indicates of the said agreement was entered into between the parties at Bhopal on 19.5.2008. That being so, with regard to the Raipur Agreement also part of the cause of action has arisen before this Court as the agreement was executed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and in that view of the matter as the parties by consent in the arbitration agreement have conferred jurisdiction to hold arbitration in Bhopal, this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the objections raised by Shri S.R. Rao, learned Senior Advocate, in this regard is wholly untenable. 8. This is a case where both the agreements were executed at Bhopal and the parties by agreement have conferred jurisdiction to the effect that the arbitration shall be held at Bhopal. In this view of the matter, this Court has jurisdiction to deal with the matter and accordingly there is no difficulty in appointing an Arbitrator in view of the agreement. However, as the only question now is as to who should be the arbitrator. The question has to be considered in the light of the dispute between the parties and the feasibility of appointing an arbitrator who can effectively deal with the matter. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of the dispute between the parties, it is thought appropriate to appoint Hon'ble Shri Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, Former Judge of the Supreme Court, stationed at Jabalpur to adjudicate the dispute between the parties. 9. Accordingly, both these applications are allowed. For adjudicating the dispute arising between the parties in connection with agreement dated 15.4.2008, and 19.5.2008, Hon'ble Shri Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, Former Judge of the Supreme Court, stationed at Jabalpur is appointed as arbitrator. Registry to forward a copy of this order to Hon'ble Shri Justice D.M. Dharmadhikari, to proceed in the matter and parties to appear and submit to the arbitrator for proceeding in the matter. 10. With the aforesaid, both the petitions stands allowed and disposed of.