Territorial jurisdiction objection waived by consent to court-referred arbitration, barring later challenge to the award.

Objection to territorial jurisdiction can be waived, unlike a challenge to a court's inherent competence, and Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure recognises that distinction. Where a defendant participates in the proceedings and consents to a court-referred arbitration, the defendant waives any objection to the High Court's local jurisdiction and is estopped from disputing both the court's power to make the reference and the arbitrator's authority to make the award. The territorial jurisdiction objection was therefore barred by waiver and estoppel, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an objection to the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court could be raised in execution after the defendant had participated in the proceedings and agreed to reference of the dispute to arbitration through court.

Analysis: An objection to local or territorial jurisdiction is different from a challenge to the very competence of the court to try the suit. While inherent lack of jurisdiction cannot be cured by consent, a defect as to territorial jurisdiction is waivable and is recognised as such by Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. By consenting to the reference of the dispute to arbitration through court, the defendant was held to have waived his objection to the Bombay High Court's territorial jurisdiction and, consequently, could not challenge either the court's authority to make the reference or the arbitrator's authority to make the award.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was barred by waiver and estoppel, and the appeal failed.

---