Arbitration jurisdiction under Section 34 must lie with the competent territorial court; a contrary forum cannot entertain the challenge.

A challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be filed before the court having territorial jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings and otherwise competent under Section 20 CPC. Where the arbitration was conducted at Raichur and the contract documents recorded Raichur jurisdiction, the District Court at Latur could not entertain the application. The objection to territorial jurisdiction not having been raised during arbitration did not confer jurisdiction on an incompetent forum. Section 42 was applied to confirm that the first court approached must also be a competent court, and a court outside the agreed or statutorily competent jurisdiction cannot hear the challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether the District Court at Latur had jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in view of the prior arbitration proceedings and the contractual stipulation confining jurisdiction to Raichur.

Analysis: The arbitration proceedings were conducted within the territorial jurisdiction of Raichur, and the bills and invoices recorded that the transactions were subject to Raichur jurisdiction. The objection to jurisdiction was not raised during the arbitration proceedings. The Court further held that the application under Section 34 had to be made before the court of original jurisdiction competent under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the award could not be challenged before a court subordinate to the High Court of Bombay when the relevant proceedings were within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka court. Applying Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Court held that the court first approached in a matter arising out of arbitration proceedings has jurisdiction where it is otherwise competent, and a contrary forum outside the agreed and competent jurisdiction cannot entertain the challenge.

Conclusion: The District Court at Latur had no jurisdiction to entertain the Section 34 application, and the High Court of Bombay erred in dismissing the revision on that basis. The jurisdiction lay with the competent court at Raichur.

Ratio Decidendi: A challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 must be presented before the competent court having territorial jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings, and a court outside the agreed or statutorily competent jurisdiction cannot assume jurisdiction contrary to Section 42.

---