{"id":194659,"date":"2018-03-31T12:17:50","date_gmt":"2018-03-31T06:47:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=194659"},"modified":"2018-03-31T12:17:50","modified_gmt":"2018-03-31T06:47:50","slug":"arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/","title":{"rendered":"Arbitration application dismissed on grounds of territorial jurisdiction"},"content":{"rendered":"

Uttaranchal High Court:<\/strong> An application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of Sudhanshu Dhulia, J., holding that the property in question was in Delhi and thus the present application was barred by want of territorial jurisdiction.<\/p>\n

A contract was executed between the applicant and the respondent at Delhi for lending out hydraulic compressors installed at various sites in Delhi. The agreement had an arbitration clause and as a dispute arose between the parties, the applicant gave an arbitration notice to the respondent. Since the respondent failed to comply with the notice, the applicant filed the instant application. The respondent objected as to the maintainability of the application on grounds of jurisdiction as the contract was executed in Delhi, parties resided in Delhi, and also the said hydraulic compressors were installed in Delhi.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that cause of action is a bundle of facts. The Court perused provisions of the Transfer of Property Act as well as the General Clauses Act to hold that the hydraulic compressors were permanently fastened to earth and therefore, they were an immovable property. The applicant relied on Section 20 of CPC to contend that as the office of the applicant was registered at Haridwar, the courts in Uttarakhand have jurisdiction in the matter. However, the High Court dismissed the contention holding that Section 20 is subject to the provisions of Sections 15-19 of CPC. Only if the case does not fall within the purview of Sections 15-19, then Section 20 comes into play. The Court finally held that as the property was situated in Delhi, therefore, in light of Section 16 of CPC, the courts having jurisdiction to decide the matter were the courts at Delhi. Consequently, the arbitration application was dismissed. [Sri Hanuman Trust v. Indian Compressor Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine Utt 211<\/a>, dated 26-03-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Uttaranchal High Court: An application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[10131,29715,12161],"class_list":["post-194659","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-arbitration-and-conciliation-act","tag-arbitration-application","tag-territorial-jurisdiction"],"yoast_head":"\nArbitration application dismissed on grounds of territorial jurisdiction | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Arbitration application dismissed on grounds of territorial jurisdiction\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Uttaranchal High Court: An application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-03-31T06:47:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/uttrakhandHC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/\",\"name\":\"Arbitration application dismissed on grounds of territorial jurisdiction | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-03-31T06:47:50+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Arbitration application dismissed on grounds of territorial jurisdiction\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Arbitration application dismissed on grounds of territorial jurisdiction | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Arbitration application dismissed on grounds of territorial jurisdiction","og_description":"Uttaranchal High Court: An application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-03-31T06:47:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/03\/uttrakhandHC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/","name":"Arbitration application dismissed on grounds of territorial jurisdiction | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-03-31T06:47:50+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/03\/31\/arbitration-application-dismissed-on-grounds-of-territorial-jurisdiction\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Arbitration application dismissed on grounds of territorial jurisdiction"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":301383,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/13\/rajasthan-hc-seat-of-arbitration-has-exclusive-jurisdiction-for-applications-filed-u-s-11-of-the-ac-act-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":194659,"position":0},"title":"Seat of arbitration once fixed by the arbitration agreement, has the exclusive jurisdiction for applications u\/s 11 of the A&C Act, 1996: Rajasthan High Court","author":"Editor","date":"September 13, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Court observes that the \u2018contrary indicia\u2019 is clearly reflected in the present case, because the seat was mentioned as Bikaner and venue was mentioned as New Delhi.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"rajasthan high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/rajasthan-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":352643,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/07\/dhc-on-arbitrators-discretion-to-fix-seat-of-arbitration\/","url_meta":{"origin":194659,"position":1},"title":"Arbitrator\u2019s discretion to fix venue\/seat of arbitration cannot override parties\u2019 exclusive jurisdiction clause in arbitration agreement: Delhi HC","author":"Editor","date":"July 7, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"When parties agree to vest exclusive jurisdiction in a particular court for any dispute arising out of the arbitration clause, it must be presumed that they intended that court only to have supervisory control.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"arbitrator's discretion seat of arbitration","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/arbitrators-discretion-seat-of-arbitration.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":344348,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/03\/25\/delhi-high-court-jurisdiction-arbitration-act-cpc-seat-dispute-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":194659,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court| Jurisdiction under S. 11 Arbitration Act must be determined by the CPC if the parties haven’t agreed on the arbitration seat or venue.","author":"Arunima","date":"March 25, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"It is a settled position in law that when the arbitration agreement is silent on the aspect of \u2018seat\u2019, \u2018venue\u2019 or \u2018place\u2019 of arbitration, the determining factor will be where the cause of action arises as well as where the defendant\/respondent actually or voluntarily resides or carries on their business.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":279604,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/14\/delhi-high-court-when-a-prayer-to-appoint-an-arbitrator-has-been-heard-and-rejected-the-same-relief-cannot-be-sought-by-filing-a-review-petition\/","url_meta":{"origin":194659,"position":3},"title":"Delhi High Court | When a prayer to appoint an Arbitrator has been heard and rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by filing a review petition","author":"Editor","date":"December 14, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Mere expression \u201cplace of arbitration\u201d cannot be the basis to determine the intention of the parties that they have intended that place as the \u201cSeat of Arbitration\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Delhi High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image-418.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":302690,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/09\/30\/accrual-of-cause-of-action-substantive-legal-action-consideration-territorial-jurisdiction-dhc-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":194659,"position":4},"title":"Accrual of cause of action at a place for pursuing substantive legal action, not a consideration for determining territorial jurisdiction u\/s 11 of A&C Act, 1996: Delhi High Court","author":"Simranjeet","date":"September 30, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cAs per Clause 31.16 of Letter of Intent between parties, place of arbitration was Faridabad (Haryana), which will be chosen as the seat, since seat has not been separately named and there are no other contrary indicia to show that place of arbitration is not intended to be seat of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":352527,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/05\/del-hc-whatsapp-email-exchange-valid-arbitration-agreement\/","url_meta":{"origin":194659,"position":5},"title":"Delhi High Court: WhatsApp and Email Exchanges May Constitute Arbitration Agreement if Statutory Conditions Are Met","author":"Editor","date":"July 5, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court noted that under Section 7(4)(b) of the Arbitration Act it is not necessary to conclude a contract for the arbitration agreement contained within it to be valid. The arbitration agreement must form a part of documents\/communication exchange between the parties.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"WhatsApp valid arbitration agreement","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/image-10-2.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/image-10-2.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/image-10-2.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/image-10-2.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194659","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=194659"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/194659\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=194659"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=194659"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=194659"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}