“38. This brings the present case, to a large extent, at par with Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd.7 , insofar as the issue in controversy was concerned. As in the present case, the “seat of arbitration” clause, in the contract, vested jurisdiction in courts at Place A (in Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd.7 , Hong Kong; in the present case, New Delhi), whereas the “exclusive jurisdiction” clause vested jurisdiction in courts at Place B (in Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd.7 , New Delhi; in the present case, Bengaluru). Mankastu contended that, by virtue of the “exclusive jurisdiction” clause, that courts at New Delhi were exclusively invested with jurisdiction to decide the Section 11 petition; parallelly, the respondent before me contends, through Mr. Prabhakar, that, by virtue of the “exclusive jurisdiction” clause in the MSA, courts at Bengaluru were exclusively invested with Section 11 jurisdiction. Airvisual contended, before the Supreme Court, per contra, that, as the seat of arbitration was Hong Kong, courts at Hong Kong would possess exclusive jurisdiction to appoint the arbitrator; parallelly, the petitioner before me contends, through Mr. Mehta, that, by virtue of the seat of arbitration, in the present case, being New Delhi, this Court would possess exclusive jurisdiction to appoint the arbitrator. At a plain glance, therefore, the issue in controversy in the present case bears stark similarity to that in Mankastu Impex Pvt. Ltd.7
