Judgment : The Petitioner-original claimant has challenged the impugned award dated 16 June 2011 passed by the Arbitrator, under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Arbitration Act”). 2. The basic lease agreements of January 2000 and 25 March 2000 were for a trailer and tanker. The relevant clauses of the agreements are as under:- “Arbitration – 33. All disputes, differences, claims and questions, which may arise during the subsistence of this Agreement between the Lessor and the Lessee touching any matter covered by this Agreement shall be referred to the arbitration of two Arbitrators one to be appointed by each party to the dispute in accordance with the provisions of Arbitration Act, 1940. Jurisdiction 34. Subject to the provisions of Clause-33 above, as a part of cause of action arises in Chennai it is agreed between the parties that in respect of any suit touching any matter, claims or disputes arising out of or in any relating to this Agreement Chennai City Court alone shall have exclusive jurisdiction.” 3. Admittedly, this Court by order dated 22 June 2004 in Arbitration Application No.33 of 2004 appointed the Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties based upon the agreements. The learned Arbitrator, after considering the material, as well as, the rival submissions has passed the award. The Petitioner challenged the award, within limitation by filing the Petition on 23 September 2011. This Court has admitted the matter on 13 January 2012. Today it is listed again for final hearing. 4. The issue now raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent that this Court has no jurisdiction, in view of the specific clause of jurisdiction as agreed by and between the parties. Considering the above two clauses, it is very clear that as the part of cause of action also arose in Chennai, as referred and as agreed the Chennai City Court has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Merely because the place of Arbitration was in Mumbai and as this Court has appointed the Arbitrator, that itself, in my view gives no jurisdiction to this Court to entertain Section 34 Petition in view of the specific agreed clause between the parties. 5. Merely because the place of Arbitration was in Mumbai and as this Court has appointed the Arbitrator, that itself, in my view gives no jurisdiction to this Court to entertain Section 34 Petition in view of the specific agreed clause between the parties. 5. Therefore, without expressing anything on merits and keeping all points open, I am inclined to observe that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain Section 34 petition as filed. Merely because this Court has admitted the matter that itself is also not sufficient to overlook the binding clause of Court's jurisdiction. All are bound by the specifically agreed Arbitration and the Court's jurisdiction clauses. 6. However, it is made clear that as the Petition was filed within limitation and this Court has admitted the same, the Petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate petition/application to condone the delay, if any. The grounds on merits so raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, as in view of above, not adjudicated and are kept open for consideration. 7. By keeping all points open, the present Petition is disposed of for want of jurisdiction. There shall be no order as to costs.