https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352511 Jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act, 1940 is determined by the statute, not by the Supreme Court's earlier appointment of the arbitrator or retention of seisin. The Court clarified that such supervisory control does not create original jurisdiction to receive or challenge the arbitral award, because the award must be filed before the court competent under the Act and vested appellate rights cannot be curtailed without express legislative authority. Earlier decisions treating retained control as conferring exclusive jurisdiction were held inconsistent with the statutory scheme and overruled. The resulting position is that post-award objections must be pursued before the competent civil court. en-us Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Dec 2017 16:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352511 Jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act, 1940 is determined by the statute, not by the Supreme Court's earlier appointment of the arbitrator or retention of seisin. The Court clarified that such supervisory control does not create original jurisdiction to receive or challenge the arbitral award, because the award must be filed before the court competent under the Act and vested appellate rights cannot be curtailed without express legislative authority. Earlier decisions treating retained control as conferring exclusive jurisdiction were held inconsistent with the statutory scheme and overruled. The resulting position is that post-award objections must be pursued before the competent civil court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 14 Dec 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=352511