Judgment : (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) The Appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge on a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, holding that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the petition. 2. A Member-Constituent Agreement was entered into between the Appellant and the Respondent. The Appellant is a member of the National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE). The Respondent resides at Jaipur. The agreement between the Appellant and Respondent was for trading in shares and securities in the Cash segment and Futures and Options segment at the NSE. The Respondent filed a statement of claim on 6 November 2009 against the Appellant before a sole arbitrator. The seat of the arbitration was Delhi. The Appellant filed a reply to the statement of claim. The sole arbitrator made an arbitral award on 29 April 2010. The Appellant filed a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the arbitral award. 3. Before the learned Single Judge, a preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of the petition in this Court. Upholding the plea, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. 4. The contention of the Appellant is that though the seat of arbitration was Delhi, no part of the cause of action had arisen there. Moreover, it has been urged that the Appellant has a registered office in Mumbai, the trades were carried out on the floor of the NSE situated at Mumbai and the Respondent resides at Jaipur. In the circumstances, it was urged that the seat of arbitration would have no relevance to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a petition since no part of the cause of action had arisen at Delhi and where neither of the parties resides or carries on business. Section 2(1)(e) defines the expression “Court” as follows:- “2(1)(e) "Court" means the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not-include any civil Court of a grade inferior to such principal civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes; 5. A petition under Section 34 for challenging an arbitral award has to be filed by taking recourse to the Court against an arbitral award. The expression “Court” for the purposes of Section 34 must be construed as it is defined in Section 2(1)(e). The Regulations of NSE, which have a statutory character, contain provisions for arbitration in Chapter 5. Chapter 11 of the NSE Bye-laws also contains provisions relating to arbitration. Regulation 5.2(a) inter alia provides as follows:-“ 5.2 SEAT OF ARBITRATION (a) The Relevant Authority may provide for different seats of arbitration for different regions of the country either generally or specifically and in such an event the seat of arbitration shall be the place so provided by the Relevant Authority for different regions shall be as follows: Seats of Arbitration-REGIONAL STATES COVERED BY THE RAC ARBITRATION CENTRES (RACs) Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, DELHI , Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Chandigarh, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, KOLKATA Manipur, Sikkim, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Chattisgarh Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, CHENNAI Tamilnadu, Andaman & Nicobar, Lakshadweep, Pondicherry Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa, Daman, Diu, MUMBAI Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Madhya Pradesh 6. The Regional Arbitration Centre at Delhi covers several states, including the State of Rajasthan. Regulation 5.3 provides the criteria for the selection of a seat of arbitration for a particular matter where a claim is brought by a trading member of the NSE against a constituent or by a constituent against a trading member. Regulation 5.3 stipulates as follows: The Application for The hearing shall be Arbitration shall be held in that RAC where filed by the the Applicant has filed TM V/s C* & C V/s Applicant at the the Application for TM RAC covering the Arbitration and the state in which the Respondent shall attend constituent the hearing in that ordinarily resides. particular RAC. * “TM” stands for “Trading Member”, “C” stands for “Constituent” and “I” stands for “Issuer”. 7. particular RAC. * “TM” stands for “Trading Member”, “C” stands for “Constituent” and “I” stands for “Issuer”. 7. Regulation 5.3A deals with the jurisdiction of courts and is as follows : “5.3A JURISDICTION OF COURTS For the purpose of Byelaw 17 of Chapter XI of the Bye-laws of the Exchange, in matters where the Exchange is a party to the dispute, the Civil courts at Mumbai shall have exclusive jurisdiction and in all other matters, proper courts within the area covered under the respective Regional Arbitration Centre shall have jurisdiction in respect of the arbitration proceedings falling / conducted in that Regional Arbitration Centre.” 8. Chapter 11 of the Bye-laws contains the following provision for a reference to arbitration of claims between trading members and their constituents: “(1) All claims, differences or disputes between the Trading Members inter se and between Trading Members and Constituents arising out of or in relation to dealings, contracts and transactions made subject to the Bye-Laws, Rules and Regulations of the Exchange or with reference to anything incidental thereto or in pursuance thereof or relating to their validity, construction, interpretation, fulfilment or the rights, obligations and liabilities of the parties thereto and including any question of whether such dealings, transactions and contracts have been entered into or not shall be submitted to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of these Byelaws and Regulations.” 9 Bye-law 17 which is on jurisdiction is as follows: “17. All parties to a reference to arbitration under these Byelaws and Regulations and the persons, if any, claiming under them, shall be deemed to have submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts in Mumbai or any other court as may be prescribed by the Relevant Authority for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act.” 10. Now, before we interpret the provisions of the Regulations and the Bye-laws, reference must be made at the outset to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminum Company vs. Kaiser Aluminum, Technical Services Inc (2012) 9 SCC 552 ) . Now, before we interpret the provisions of the Regulations and the Bye-laws, reference must be made at the outset to the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Bharat Aluminum Company vs. Kaiser Aluminum, Technical Services Inc (2012) 9 SCC 552 ) . The judgment of the Supreme Court is an authoritative pronouncement on the position in law that Part I of the Act of 1996 is applicable only to all arbitrations which take place within the territory of India and hence, in a foreign seated international commercial arbitration, no application for interim relief would be maintainable under Section 9 or any other provision. In the course of the judgment, the Supreme Court adverted to the provisions of Section 2(1)(e) and held that the expression “subject-matter of the arbitration” is not to be equated with the expression “subject-matter of the suit”. The judgment of the Supreme Court held thus: “96. We are of the opinion, the term "subject-matter of the arbitration" cannot be confused with "subject- matter of the suit". The term "subject-matter" in Section 2(1)(e) is confined to Part I. It has a reference and connection with the process of dispute resolution. Its purpose is to identify the courts having supervisory control over the arbitration proceedings. Hence, it refers to a court which would essentially be a court of the seat of the arbitration process. In our opinion, the provision in Section 2(1)(e) has to be construed keeping in view the provisions in Section 20 which give recognition to party autonomy. Accepting the narrow construction as projected by the learned counsel for the appellants would, in fact, render Section 20 nugatory. In our view, the legislature has intentionally given jurisdiction to two courts i.e. the court which would have jurisdiction where the cause of action is located and the courts where the arbitration takes place. This was necessary as on many occasions the agreement may provide for a seat of arbitration at a place which would be neutral to both the parties. Therefore, the courts where the arbitration takes place would be required to exercise supervisory control over the arbitral process. This was necessary as on many occasions the agreement may provide for a seat of arbitration at a place which would be neutral to both the parties. Therefore, the courts where the arbitration takes place would be required to exercise supervisory control over the arbitral process. For example, if the arbitration is held in Delhi, where neither of the parties are from Delhi, (Delhi having been chosen as a neutral place as between a party from Mumbai and the other from Kolkata) and the tribunal sitting in Delhi passes an interim order Under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, the appeal against such an interim order under Section 37 must lie to the Courts of Delhi being the Courts having supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and the tribunal. This would be irrespective of the fact that the obligations to be performed under the contract were to be performed either at Mumbai or at Kolkata, and only arbitration is to take place in Delhi. In such circumstances, both the Courts would have jurisdiction, i.e., the Court within whose jurisdiction the subject-matter of the suit is situated and the courts within the jurisdiction of which the dispute resolution i.e. arbitration is located. (emphasis supplied) The Supreme Court has also held that regulation of arbitration consists of four steps: (i) the commencement of arbitration; (ii) the conduct of arbitration; (iii) the challenge to an award; and (iv) the recognition or enforcement of an award. Section 34 provides for a remedy to challenge an arbitral award. Thus, the decision in BALCO is now authority for the principle that the Court where the arbitration takes place would have supervisory control over the arbitral process. Moreover, both the court within whose jurisdiction the subject matter of the suit is located and the court within the jurisdiction of which the dispute resolution i.e. arbitration was located, would have jurisdiction. Following the decision in BALCO ordinarily, both the court having jurisdiction over the seat of arbitration in the present case (Delhi) and the court where subject matter of the suit is situated would have jurisdiction. The issue which falls for consideration in the present case is whether the statutory regulations and the Bye-laws confer exclusive jurisdiction to entertain a petition to challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 in the present case, to the place where the seat of the arbitration is situated. 11. The issue which falls for consideration in the present case is whether the statutory regulations and the Bye-laws confer exclusive jurisdiction to entertain a petition to challenge an arbitral award under Section 34 in the present case, to the place where the seat of the arbitration is situated. 11. In order to arrive at a decision on this facet, the NSE Regulations must be read in a holistic manner. NSE has four Regional Arbitration Centres at Delhi, Kolkata, Chennai and Mumbai. The seat of the arbitration is one of these four seats. Each Regional Arbitration Centre covers a number of States. The Regional Arbitration Centre at Delhi covers nine States including the State of Rajasthan. The jurisdiction of courts is provided in Regulation 5.3A. Regulation 5.3A, in turn, refers to Bye-law 17. Bye-law 17 stipulates that all parties to a reference for arbitration under the Bye-laws and Regulations shall be deemed to have submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction of (i) the courts in Mumbai and/or (ii) any other court as may be prescribed by the relevant authority for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Bye-law 17 itself recognises the conferment of exclusive jurisdiction either upon the courts in Mumbai and/or any other court, as may be prescribed by the relevant authority. Now, it is in this context that Regulation 5.3A must be construed. Regulation 5.3A states in the first part that for the purpose of Bye-law 17, in matters where the Exchange is a party to the dispute, the Civil Courts at Mumbai shall have exclusive jurisdiction. The second part of Regulation 5.3A, again for the purposes of Bye-law 17, stipulates that in all other matters, the proper courts within the area covered under the respective Regional Arbitration Centre shall have jurisdiction in respect of the arbitration proceedings falling / conducted in that Regional Arbitration Centre. 12 Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant seeks to make a distinction between the first part of Bye-law 5.3A and the second part, on the ground that whereas the first part uses the expression “exclusive jurisdiction”, the second part does not do so. We are not impressed with that submission because Regulation 5.3A begins with the expression that it is for the purposes of Bye-law 17 of Chapter 11. We are not impressed with that submission because Regulation 5.3A begins with the expression that it is for the purposes of Bye-law 17 of Chapter 11. Bye-law 17 of Chapter 11 specifically speaks of an exclusive jurisdiction exercisable either by the courts in Mumbai or any other court. Hence, the second part of Regulation 5.3A must be given a natural and ordinary meaning. The intent of the subordinate legislation is that where the Exchange is a party to the dispute, exclusive jurisdiction will be of the courts at Mumbai. Where the exchange is not a party to the dispute, the exclusive jurisdiction would be of the courts within the area covered by the respective Regional Arbitration Centres. The submission of the Appellants would require the court to read the word “also” in the latter part of Regulation 5.3A and the expression “shall have jurisdiction” will in that case be altered to read “shall also have jurisdiction.” On the other hand, the plain and the natural meaning of Regulation 5.3A when construed in the context of Bye-law 17 is that where the Exchange is a party to the dispute, exclusive jurisdiction would be of the civil courts in Mumbai whereas in a situation, such as in the present case, where the Exchange is not a party to the dispute between a trading member and a constituent, the Courts having jurisdiction over the seat of arbitration would have exclusive jurisdiction. This would also sub-serve the object and intention of the regulation. It may be noted here that when a trading member has to file an arbitration application against the constituent or vice-versa, it has to be at the Regional Arbitration Centre covering the State in which the constituent ordinarily resides. The import of the regulations and the Bye-laws is, therefore, to restrict jurisdiction in the interests of the constituent member to that court which would have jurisdiction over the place where the Regional Arbitration Centre is situated, depending on the residence of the constituent. 13. In the circumstances, though for the reasons which we have indicated, we have come to the conclusion that the learned Single Judge arrived at the correct conclusion. No case for interference in appeal is made out. 14. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. 13. In the circumstances, though for the reasons which we have indicated, we have come to the conclusion that the learned Single Judge arrived at the correct conclusion. No case for interference in appeal is made out. 14. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. The order of the learned Single Judge records in paragraph 7 that the Appellant has already deposited the amount in pursuance of the arbitration award. In order to enable the Appellant to move the appropriate court, we direct that the amount which