Facts & Background:

• The Petitioner, Mankastu Impex Private Limited, incorporated in India under "Atlanta Healthcare," specialises in air quality management and related products.
• The Respondent was a Hong Kong-based company that manufactures air quality monitors.
• A Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.09.2016 appointed the Petitioner as an exclusive distributor for the respondent’s air quality monitors in India and non-exclusive distributor in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and Nepal for 5 years.
• On 14.10.2017, the Petitioner received an email from Mr. Charl Cater of IQAir AG, notifying the Respondent’s acquisition and product discontinuation. On 15.10.2017, the Petitioner invoked the MoU, asserting contractual obligations.
• On 31.10.2017, the Petitioner requested a proforma invoice from IQAir AG, which refused to honor the existing contract and proposed a new non-exclusive arrangement. Subsequent follow-up emails received no response.
• On 08.12.2017, the Petitioner issued a notice invoking the arbitration clause in the MoU, proposing Hon’ble Justice RC Chopra as the arbitrator.
• On 11.12.2017, the Petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Delhi High Court, seeking enforcement of the MoU and restraining the Respondent’s actions.
• In response to the Petitioner’s notice, IQAir AG stated on 15.12.2017 it assumed no obligations under the MoU. The Respondent replied on 05.01.2018, asserting Hong Kong-seated arbitration.
• The Petitioner filed present petition under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking the appointment of a Sole Arbitrator under Clause 17 of the MoU.
  

Main Issue:

• Whether the parties have agreed that the seat of arbitration is in Hong Kong and whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996? (Paragraph 14)