Arbitration interim relief jurisdiction turns on suit-based territorial competence, not merely the contractually chosen seat.

Jurisdiction for a section 9 interim-measures application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act depends on whether the court would have jurisdiction over the underlying subject-matter as if it were a suit. Where the dispute concerns immovable property and contractual performance outside Bangalore, sections 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure point away from Bangalore as the proper forum. A contractual place of arbitration under section 20 does not by itself confer jurisdiction on a court that the statute does not otherwise empower. Jurisdiction under the Act is statutory and cannot be created by agreement or consent.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Bangalore Court had jurisdiction under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to entertain the application for interim measures in respect of immovable property and contractual disputes arising from the project agreement.

Analysis: The definition of "Court" in section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 requires the court to be the principal civil court of original jurisdiction having jurisdiction to decide the subject-matter of the arbitration as if it were the subject-matter of a suit. The dispute related to immovable property and contractual performance situated outside Bangalore, and on the principles in sections 16 to 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a suit on the same subject-matter would not lie in Bangalore. The place of arbitration chosen by the parties under section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 did not by itself confer jurisdiction on a court that otherwise lacked it. Jurisdiction under the Act is statutory, and parties cannot confer it by agreement or consent where the statute does not do so.

Conclusion: The Bangalore Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the section 9 application, and the challenge to the dismissal of that application failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed because the forum chosen in the contract could not override the statutory test of jurisdiction under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Ratio Decidendi: For an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, jurisdiction depends on whether the court would have had jurisdiction over the underlying subject-matter if it were the subject of a suit, and such jurisdiction cannot be created by agreement or consent.

---