https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101578 In company liquidation matters, the winding-up court may exercise concurrent jurisdiction under section 446 of the Companies Act, while section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the court where the first application in a reference is made. For the second, third, fourth and fifth references, the first application had already been filed before the winding-up court, making it the competent forum for those matters. No fresh leave under section 446(1) was required on the facts, and the application to set aside the award had to be returned for presentation before the proper court. en-us Tue, 30 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:43:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101578 In company liquidation matters, the winding-up court may exercise concurrent jurisdiction under section 446 of the Companies Act, while section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to the court where the first application in a reference is made. For the second, third, fourth and fifth references, the first application had already been filed before the winding-up court, making it the competent forum for those matters. No fresh leave under section 446(1) was required on the facts, and the application to set aside the award had to be returned for presentation before the proper court. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 30 Sep 1986 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=101578