Exclusive jurisdiction under arbitration law extends to award enforcement, and execution cannot be stalled by territorial objections or transfer rules.

Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the court where the first Part I application was filed, and an enforcement application under Section 36 is a subsequent proceeding arising out of the arbitration agreement and arbitral proceedings. The Act operates as a special code and prevails over inconsistent CPC procedures, so execution of the award did not require transfer under Section 39 in the circumstances described. Examination of the judgment-debtor could not be refused merely because assets or the debtor were outside territorial jurisdiction, as such examination serves to identify assets for satisfaction of the award.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, after an application under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had earlier been made before the Calcutta High Court, that Court alone had jurisdiction to entertain and execute the arbitral award under Section 42 of the Act. (ii) Whether an execution application for enforcement of an arbitral award had to be transferred under Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the expression "property" in that section included movable property. (iii) Whether examination of the judgment-debtor could be refused on the ground that the judgment-debtor or assets were outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

Issue (i): Whether, after an application under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had earlier been made before the Calcutta High Court, that Court alone had jurisdiction to entertain and execute the arbitral award under Section 42 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 42 contains a non obstante clause and mandates that where an application under Part I has once been made in a Court, that Court alone has jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of the arbitration agreement and the arbitral proceedings. An application for enforcement under Section 36 is a subsequent application arising out of the arbitration agreement and the arbitral proceedings. The Act is a special and self-contained code and, to the extent of inconsistency, overrides the general procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The earlier Section 9 application had been made in the Calcutta High Court, and the award was also being enforced in relation to assets already under a Receiver appointed by that Court.

Conclusion: The Calcutta High Court had exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and execute the award; this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether an execution application for enforcement of an arbitral award had to be transferred under Section 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and whether the expression "property" in that section included movable property.

Analysis: An arbitral award is treated as a decree only for the limited purpose of enforcement under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; it does not become a decree for all purposes under the Code of Civil Procedure. The transfer provisions of Section 39 are therefore not attracted in the same manner as in ordinary decree execution where Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs jurisdiction. The Court further held that the reasoning applicable to immovable property outside jurisdiction does not support a transfer requirement for movable property, since movable property has no fixed situs and may be traced and attached through execution mechanisms. Examination of the judgment-debtor was also a step to discover assets, and the question of transfer on the basis of asset situs did not arise at that stage.

Conclusion: Transfer under Section 39 was not required in the circumstances, and the issue of movable property did not defeat execution before the Court; this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): Whether examination of the judgment-debtor could be refused on the ground that the judgment-debtor or assets were outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.

Analysis: Examination of a judgment-debtor under the execution provisions is intended to ascertain the debtor's assets and means of satisfaction. The situs of property can only be determined after such examination. Since the Court had already been approached under Part I of the Act and the assets of the subject matter of arbitration were under its Receiver, refusal to examine the judgment-debtor on jurisdictional grounds was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The refusal to proceed with examination of the judgment-debtor could not be sustained; this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, and the order under challenge was set aside to the extent it had prevented continuation of the execution proceedings in the Calcutta High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an application under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has first been made in a Court, Section 42 confers exclusive jurisdiction on that Court for all subsequent applications arising out of the arbitration agreement and the arbitral proceedings, including execution of the arbitral award.

---