Exclusive arbitration jurisdiction arises only after a valid reference application brings proceedings under a court's control.

Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 confers exclusive jurisdiction only when a valid application in a reference brings the arbitration proceedings under a court's control. A petition that was filed only for a declaration on an arbitrator's appointment and later became infructuous, without any adjudication or continuing seisin over the arbitration, did not oust the jurisdiction of another competent court. On that basis, the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction because the goods were delivered at Bombay and the contractual performance connected the dispute with that forum. The petition for extension of time to make the award was therefore maintainable before the Bombay High Court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Bombay High Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 merely because an earlier petition had been filed before the Delhi High Court and dismissed as infructuous, and whether the appellant's petition for extension of time to make the award was maintainable before the Bombay High Court.

Analysis: Section 31(4) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court in which the first valid application in a reference is made, but the earlier proceeding before the Delhi High Court was only for a declaration regarding the validity of one arbitrator's appointment. That petition was dismissed as infructuous on the death of the nominated arbitrator, and the Delhi High Court did not retain control over the arbitration proceedings, appoint an arbitrator, or issue directions bringing the matter within its continuing seisin. A mere filing of a petition which ended without adjudication on the arbitration proceedings themselves could not exclude the jurisdiction of the court otherwise competent to entertain later applications. Since the goods were delivered at Bombay and the contractual performance connected the dispute with that forum, the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction to hear the petition.

Conclusion: The Bombay High Court was not justified in rejecting the appellant's petition for want of jurisdiction, and the petition for extension of time under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was maintainable before it.

Ratio Decidendi: For Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, exclusive jurisdiction is attracted only by a valid application in a reference that brings the arbitration proceedings under the court's control; a petition that becomes infructuous without such control does not bar another competent court from entertaining later applications.

---