Territorial jurisdiction in arbitration disputes over immovable property cannot be conferred by waiver, consent, or delayed objection.

Territorial jurisdiction under Sections 9 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was found unavailable where the substantive relief concerned control and possession of immovable property in Amritsar, because such disputes fall within Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and cannot be treated as mere personal obedience claims. The Court also noted that waiver, delay, or pleadings could not confer competence on a forum otherwise lacking subject-matter jurisdiction; Section 21 of the Code did not cure the defect. The petitions for interim protection and appointment of an arbitrator were therefore not maintainable before the Delhi forum and were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Delhi Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Sections 9 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the underlying dispute concerned immovable property situated at Amritsar. (ii) Whether the respondent was precluded from challenging jurisdiction because of the pleadings and delay in raising the objection.

Issue (i): Whether the Delhi Court had territorial jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Sections 9 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 where the underlying dispute concerned immovable property situated at Amritsar.

Analysis: The relief sought was not confined to a mere restraint or a transfer of shares in the books of the company; in substance, it concerned enforcement of an arrangement by which control and possession of immovable property was to pass. For purposes of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court must have jurisdiction over the subject matter on the same footing as a suit based on the same facts. Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs disputes involving determination of rights or interests in immovable property, and the proviso applies only where the entire relief can be obtained through personal obedience. The Court held that such complete relief could not be granted merely by directing personal obedience, because possession and effective control over land at Amritsar would still be involved. Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 could not override the special jurisdictional restriction flowing from Section 16(d).

Conclusion: The Delhi Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions on the subject-matter test, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent was precluded from challenging jurisdiction because of the pleadings and delay in raising the objection.

Analysis: An objection to territorial jurisdiction may in some cases be waived, but consent or admission cannot confer jurisdiction where the court is otherwise incompetent to entertain the matter. The objection here went to subject-matter competence under Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, not merely to venue. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 did not assist the petitioner because the court lacked jurisdiction over the immovable property dispute itself, and there was no estoppel against law. The respondent's earlier pleading or the timing of the objection could not validate proceedings before a court lacking such jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The respondent was not barred from raising the jurisdictional objection, and this issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The petitions for interim protection and appointment of arbitrator were not maintainable before the Delhi Court and were dismissed, with the interim order vacated.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the substantive relief in an arbitration-related proceeding effectively requires determination of rights in immovable property situated outside the forum, jurisdiction is controlled by Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and cannot be conferred by consent, waiver, or pleading admission.

---