Jurisdictional valuation in section 9 arbitration relief turns on the real subject-matter affected, not an arbitrary figure chosen by the applicant.

In a section 9 proceeding under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, jurisdiction and valuation must be fixed by reference to the real subject-matter affected by the interim relief, as the court competent to decide the dispute if it were a suit. Where the relief sought restrained operation of a partnership bank account and stopped withdrawals, the affected property was the bank account carrying the cash credit limit, so that value governed court-fee and forum. The Court applied the amended Uttar Pradesh valuation principle under section 7(iv-B)(b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and noted that the arbitration rules under the earlier regime did not provide a separate valuation method for such petitions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal was within the pecuniary jurisdiction of a Single Judge or was required to be placed before a Division Bench, and whether the valuation for jurisdiction in a proceeding under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had to be determined with reference to the subject-matter likely to be affected.

Analysis: For the purposes of section 2(e) and section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the relevant inquiry is the court competent to decide the subject-matter of the arbitration if it were the subject-matter of a suit. The dispute in the present matter concerned the restraint on operation of the partnership bank account and the order stopping withdrawals, while the other prayers were merely consequential. Applying the valuation principles reflected in section 7(iv-B)(b) of the Court Fees Act, 1870 as amended in Uttar Pradesh, the property affected by the relief was the bank account carrying a cash credit limit of Rs. 15 lakhs. The Court also noted that the arbitration rules framed under the earlier regime did not provide a separate mode of valuation for this kind of petition.

Conclusion: The appeal had to be valued at Rs. 15 lakhs for jurisdictional purposes and was cognizable by a Division Bench, not a Single Judge.

Final Conclusion: Jurisdiction in a section 9 proceeding must be determined by the real subject-matter affected by the interim relief, and not by an arbitrary valuation chosen by the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In a proceeding under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, jurisdictional valuation is governed by the subject-matter likely to be affected by the relief claimed, and where the relief concerns a specific property or right, that property or right furnishes the basis of valuation for court-fee and forum purposes.

---