https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242750 Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was interpreted to permit both the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction and the District Judge to fall within the definition of "Court", but the legislative preference was held to favour the superior original civil court where such a High Court exists territorially. The CPC's venue rule in Section 15 was held inapplicable because the Arbitration Act's jurisdictional scheme is distinct, and Section 16 CPC was irrelevant as the dispute did not involve an immovable-property suit. Section 42 of the Arbitration Act was treated as reflecting the policy that connected arbitration proceedings should not be split across different courts. The High Court was therefore the proper forum for challenges to the arbitral award, and the transfer order was upheld. en-us Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Jun 2022 12:23:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242750 Section 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was interpreted to permit both the High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction and the District Judge to fall within the definition of "Court", but the legislative preference was held to favour the superior original civil court where such a High Court exists territorially. The CPC's venue rule in Section 15 was held inapplicable because the Arbitration Act's jurisdictional scheme is distinct, and Section 16 CPC was irrelevant as the dispute did not involve an immovable-property suit. Section 42 of the Arbitration Act was treated as reflecting the policy that connected arbitration proceedings should not be split across different courts. The High Court was therefore the proper forum for challenges to the arbitral award, and the transfer order was upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Thu, 16 Jan 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=242750