Judgment : The Petitioner has challenged award dated 29 April 2010 passed by the panel of Arbitrator of National Stock Exchange of India Limited (for short, NSEIL) as per their Rules, Regulations and Byelaws. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent has raised preliminary objection with regard to the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the present Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act). Admittedly, the parties have entered into an Agreement between Stock Broker and Client, at Mumbai, on 14 October 2008. Clause 19 of the said agreement is as under:“19. The stock broker and the client declare and agree that the transactions executed on the Exchange are subject to Rules; Byelaws and Regulations and circulars issued there under of the Exchange and all parties to such trade shall have submitted to the jurisdiction of such court as may be specified by the Byelaws and Regulations of the Exchange for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of the Rules, Byelaws and Regulations of the Exchange and the circulars issued there under”. 3. Here it is therefore, necessary to read and refer the relevant provisions of the byelaws of NSEIL. Regulations – Part A (Capital Market Segment) 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. Save as otherwise specified by the Relevant Authority, the seat of arbitration for different regions shall be as follows:- (b) The premises/location where arbitration shall take place shall be such place as may be identified by the Exchange from time to time and intimated to the arbitrator and the parties to the dispute accordingly. Seats of Arbitration-REGIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRES (RACs) STATE COVERD BY THE RAC. Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, DELHI Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Chandigarh, Rajasthan. Seats of Arbitration-REGIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRES (RACs) STATE COVERD BY THE RAC. Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Uttaranchal, DELHI Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Jammu & Kashmir, Chandigarh, Rajasthan. West Bengal, Bihar, Jharkhand, Orissa, KOLKATA Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Manipur, Sikkim, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Tripura, Chattisgarh CHENNAI Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamilnadu, Andaman & Nicobar, Lakshadweep, Pondicherry MUMBAI Maharashtra, Gujarat, Goa, Daman, Diu, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Madhya Pradesh 5.3 CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF SEAT OF ARBITRATION Save as otherwise specified by the Relevant Authority, the criteria for selection of seat of arbitration for a particular matter is as follows: Place of filing the Application for Parties to Dispute Place of hearing Arbitration a) If the dealing offices of both Trading members from where the dealing was carried is situated in any one of the states covered by a particular RAC then the Application for Arbitration shall be filed by the Applicant – Trading Member in that RAC. The hearing shall be held at the RAC where the Applicant Trading Member TM* V/s TM b) If the dealing offices of both Trading members from where the dealing was carried out are situated in states covered by different RACs then the Application for Arbitration shall be has filed the Application for Arbitration and the Respondent Trading Member shall attend the hearing in that particular RAC. filed in the RAC covering the state in which the Respondent – Trading Member's dealing office is situated. The hearing shall be held The Application for Arbitration in that RAC where the shall be filed by the Applicant at Applicant has filed the TM V/s C* & C V/s TM the RAC covering the state in Application for Arbitration which the Constituent ordinarily resides. and the Respondent shall attend the hearing in that particular RAC. C V/s I* The Application for Arbitration shall be filed by the Applicant (constituent) at the RAC overing the state in which the applicant actually and voluntarily resides. The hearing shall be held in that RAC where the Applicant (Constituent) has filed the Application for Arbitration and the Respondent (Issuer) shall attend the hearing in that particular RAC. * “TM” stands for “Trading Member”, “C” stands for “Constituent” and “I” stands for “Issuer”. The hearing shall be held in that RAC where the Applicant (Constituent) has filed the Application for Arbitration and the Respondent (Issuer) shall attend the hearing in that particular RAC. * “TM” stands for “Trading Member”, “C” stands for “Constituent” and “I” stands for “Issuer”. 5.3A JURISDICTION OF COURTS For the purpose of Byelaw 17 of Chapter XI of the Byelaws 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. 4. The learned counsel has strongly relied upon a Judgment of this Court Kotak Securities Limited Vs. Chetan Bhandary & Ors. in Arbitration Petition No. 13 of 2008 (Coram:A. S. Oka,J.) dated 25 November 2008, whereby this Court on facts and circumstances and considering the agreement between the parties upheld the preliminary objection and thereby directed to return the Petition for presentation to the proper Court. That was also the case of Arbitration, arising out of the Byelaws of NSEIL. 5. I already observed and even settled by the Supreme Court that the parties are bound by their agreements. In the present case, as noted the relevant clauses of the agreement referring to the jurisdiction made it clear that the Rules, Bye laws and Regulations and the conclusions issued there under, will govern the Court's jurisdiction also. Therefore, this is a case where parties have specifically agreed that particular Court should have exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, the guiding factor in the present case again would be the Rules and Regulations of the Exchange. I am inclined to observe, in the present facts and circumstances, that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition under Section 34. Such part of cause of action, in a given case, can be the foundation for consideration these aspects provided there is vagueness and/or unclear Court jurisdiction clause. I am inclined to observe that the jurisdictional issue needs to be considered from the foundation of specific agreement between the parties. Such part of cause of action, in a given case, can be the foundation for consideration these aspects provided there is vagueness and/or unclear Court jurisdiction clause. I am inclined to observe that the jurisdictional issue needs to be considered from the foundation of specific agreement between the parties. Therefore, as there is no specific agreement of Mumbai Court's jurisdiction, I am inclined to accept the preliminary objection so raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent in this matter and this Court at Mumbai has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition. Therefore, keeping all points open, I am inclined to dispose of the present Petition on the preliminary objection with regard to Court's jurisdiction itself. 6. As the issue of jurisdiction has been decided by this Court for the first time, the liberty is granted to the Petitioner to move an appropriate application and/or take steps by invoking provisions of Limitation Act and/or for taking steps for condonation of delay, if required. The Petition was admittedly pending since 2011 in this Court for final disposal. All points are kept open. 7. It is made clear that as the Petitioner has already deposited the amount pursuance to the Award so passed. The said amount need not be transferred unless the Petition under Section 34 against the impugned Award is finally adjudicated or decided. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner and/or parties to apply for appropriate direction or for modification. The Petitioner to take steps within six weeks. 8. With this, the Petition is disposed of with the liberty. There shall be no order as to costs.