Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, after an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had already been made before one court, a later application under Section 11(6) of the same Act could be entertained by another High Court.
Issue (i): Whether, after an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 had already been made before one court, a later application under Section 11(6) of the same Act could be entertained by another High Court.
Analysis: Section 42 creates a statutory rule of exclusive jurisdiction. Once an application with respect to an arbitration agreement is made in a court, that court alone retains jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement. The prior Section 9 proceeding at Visakhapatnam therefore fixed the forum for later applications. The fact that the opposite party did not oppose appointment of an arbitrator could not confer jurisdiction on a court that otherwise lacked it.
Conclusion: The later Section 11(6) application was not maintainable before the Orissa High Court, and jurisdiction lay only before the competent court first approached under the Act.
Final Conclusion: The order appointing the arbitrator was set aside for want of jurisdiction, and the applicant was left free to approach the competent High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: Under Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the first court approached in relation to an arbitration agreement acquires exclusive jurisdiction over all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement.