Exclusive jurisdiction and section 42 barred a later arbitration petition in Delhi after an earlier filing in Mumbai.

An arbitration petition under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not maintainable in Delhi because the agreement fixed Mumbai as the seat/venue and conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Mumbai courts. Territorial jurisdiction could not be created by consent where it otherwise did not exist, and no basis was shown to displace the contractual forum. An earlier section 9 application had already been filed before the Bombay High Court, so section 42 required all subsequent applications arising from the same arbitration agreement to be made in that court alone until that court decided otherwise. The Delhi High Court therefore declined to entertain the petition and directed filing before the Bombay High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petition under section 11(4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable before the Delhi High Court in the face of the contractual stipulation conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at Mumbai and the earlier filing of an application under section 9 of the Act before the Bombay High Court.

Analysis: The venue clause and the jurisdiction clause in the agreement fixed Mumbai as the place of arbitration and conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at Mumbai. In proceedings under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, territorial jurisdiction is determined on principles analogous to section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and a party cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that otherwise lacks it. The petitioner did not plead or establish that no part of the cause of action arose at Mumbai. Further, since an earlier application under section 9 of the Act had already been made before the Bombay High Court, section 42 operated to require all subsequent applications arising out of the same arbitration agreement to be filed in that court alone, until that court held otherwise.

Conclusion: The Delhi High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition, and the petition was required to be filed before the Bombay High Court.

Final Conclusion: The proceeding was not adjudicated on merits and was sent to the forum contractually and statutorily indicated for further filing and consideration.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an arbitration agreement confers exclusive jurisdiction on a particular court and an earlier application under the Act is already pending there, section 42 mandates that subsequent applications under Part I of the Act be made only in that court until want of jurisdiction is determined by that court.

---