Letters Patent jurisdiction governs Section 9 arbitration relief where business presence and chosen seat support Mumbai forum competence.

For a Section 9 petition before a Chartered High Court, territorial competence is governed by Clause XII of the Letters Patent, and Section 120 of the Code excludes application of Section 20 to restrict that jurisdiction. The note states that a defendant carrying on business within the local limits is sufficient to found jurisdiction even if the initial cause of action arose elsewhere. It further treats the later shift of the registered office to Mumbai as relevant to the jurisdictional inquiry when the issue was decided, and rejects forum conveniens where the parties had chosen Mumbai as the arbitration seat and proceedings were already underway there.

---

---

Issues: Whether, for a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Bombay High Court, jurisdiction was to be determined by Clause XII of the Letters Patent and Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction despite no part of the cause of action having arisen in Mumbai at the inception; and whether the subsequent shifting of the registered office and considerations of convenience could confer or affect jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether, for a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before the Bombay High Court, jurisdiction was to be determined by Clause XII of the Letters Patent and Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: The definition of "Court" under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 includes a High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction. For the Bombay High Court, a Chartered High Court, the relevant source of original jurisdiction is Clause XII of the Letters Patent. Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 expressly excludes Sections 16, 17 and 20 from application to a High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Code's territorial rule in Section 20 could not be imported to restrict the Bombay High Court's jurisdiction under the Letters Patent. The earlier precedent relied upon against this view was distinguished, and the principle of stare decisis was applied to decline reconsideration of the settled position.

Conclusion: Jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court in such matters was governed by Clause XII of the Letters Patent, and Section 120 barred application of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (ii): Whether the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction despite no part of the cause of action having arisen in Mumbai at the inception.

Analysis: Under Clause XII of the Letters Patent, a defendant carrying on business within the local limits of the Court's original jurisdiction is sufficient to found jurisdiction, irrespective of where the cause of action arose. The Court held that the earlier order under challenge correctly proceeded on the footing that the respondent had a corporate office in Mumbai and that, at the time jurisdiction was examined, the appellant's registered office had also been shifted to Mumbai. In these circumstances, the Bombay High Court was competent to entertain the Section 9 petition. The argument that jurisdiction must fail because the cause of action arose elsewhere was rejected as inconsistent with the special charter governing the High Court.

Conclusion: The Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the Section 9 petition.

Issue (iii): Whether the subsequent shifting of the registered office and considerations of convenience could confer or affect jurisdiction.

Analysis: Territorial jurisdiction was treated as a matter to be assessed with reference to the circumstances existing when the issue was decided, and subsequent events were held relevant to that inquiry. The Court accepted that the registered office had been shifted to Mumbai before the jurisdictional issue was decided and held that the Court was entitled to proceed on that footing. The plea of forum conveniens was also rejected because the parties had chosen Mumbai as the seat of arbitration and the proceedings were already being conducted there.

Conclusion: The subsequent shift of the registered office and convenience factors did not defeat jurisdiction; instead, they supported the Bombay High Court's competence to proceed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the Bombay High Court was directed to proceed with the Section 9 proceedings on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In a petition before a Chartered High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction, territorial competence is governed by the Letters Patent and not by Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and where the parties have chosen that forum and the defendant carries on business within its limits, the Court may entertain the arbitration petition even if the initial cause of action arose elsewhere.

---