https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108777 An arbitration petition under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not maintainable in Delhi because the agreement fixed Mumbai as the seat/venue and conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Mumbai courts. Territorial jurisdiction could not be created by consent where it otherwise did not exist, and no basis was shown to displace the contractual forum. An earlier section 9 application had already been filed before the Bombay High Court, so section 42 required all subsequent applications arising from the same arbitration agreement to be made in that court alone until that court decided otherwise. The Delhi High Court therefore declined to entertain the petition and directed filing before the Bombay High Court. en-us Tue, 06 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:12:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108777 An arbitration petition under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was not maintainable in Delhi because the agreement fixed Mumbai as the seat/venue and conferred exclusive jurisdiction on Mumbai courts. Territorial jurisdiction could not be created by consent where it otherwise did not exist, and no basis was shown to displace the contractual forum. An earlier section 9 application had already been filed before the Bombay High Court, so section 42 required all subsequent applications arising from the same arbitration agreement to be made in that court alone until that court decided otherwise. The Delhi High Court therefore declined to entertain the petition and directed filing before the Bombay High Court. Case-Laws Companies Law Tue, 06 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108777