https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104695 An arbitral award should not be enforced by execution when a section 34 challenge is already pending and the award has not attained finality. The discussion explains that territorial jurisdiction under civil procedure may exist, but that alone does not justify attachment or execution where a competent court is already seized of a challenge to the award. A contractual jurisdiction clause and the earlier Bangalore proceedings were material to the restraint on enforcement. The practical effect was that the executing court should have stayed its hands rather than proceed with attachment of movable property. en-us Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Sep 2013 16:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104695 An arbitral award should not be enforced by execution when a section 34 challenge is already pending and the award has not attained finality. The discussion explains that territorial jurisdiction under civil procedure may exist, but that alone does not justify attachment or execution where a competent court is already seized of a challenge to the award. A contractual jurisdiction clause and the earlier Bangalore proceedings were material to the restraint on enforcement. The practical effect was that the executing court should have stayed its hands rather than proceed with attachment of movable property. Case-Laws Companies Law Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=104695