Arbitration jurisdiction under the 1996 Act favours the superior original civil court, not CPC venue rules, for award challenges.

Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was interpreted to permit both the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction and the District Judge to fall within the definition of "Court", but the legislative preference was held to favour the superior original civil court where such a High Court exists territorially. The CPC's venue rule in Section 15 was held inapplicable because the Arbitration Act's jurisdictional scheme is distinct, and Section 16 CPC was irrelevant as the dispute did not involve an immovable-property suit. Section 42 of the Arbitration Act was treated as reflecting the policy that connected arbitration proceedings should not be split across different courts. The High Court was therefore the proper forum for challenges to the arbitral award, and the transfer order was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in proceedings challenging the same arbitral award, jurisdiction lay with the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction or with the District Judge as the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, and whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure could displace the jurisdictional scheme under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Analysis: The High Court and the District Judge could both answer the definition of "Court" under Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, but the legislative choice under that provision favours the superior court exercising original civil jurisdiction when such a High Court exists within the relevant territorial area. The scheme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was held to be different from Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the principle of choosing the court of the lowest grade was therefore inapplicable. Section 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was found irrelevant because the dispute did not concern any of the categories of immovable-property suits covered by that provision. Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 reflected the policy that disputes arising out of the same arbitration agreement or award should not proceed in different courts, and where two courts are otherwise competent, the legislative intent is to avoid conflicting adjudication.

Conclusion: The High Court alone was the proper forum to hear the challenges to the arbitral award, and the transfer order was upheld.

---