https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197274 For a domestic arbitration seated in India, the court at the seat has supervisory jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(e) to hear a Section 34 challenge. An earlier Section 9 application did not attract Section 42 because the prior proceedings before the Madras High Court were not pressed, so later proceedings were not confined to that forum. An exclusive jurisdiction clause must be strictly construed and will not exclude a statutory Section 34 petition unless it clearly covers that proceeding. The dismissal for want of jurisdiction was therefore set aside and the award challenge restored for consideration on merits. en-us Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jan 2018 17:04:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197274 For a domestic arbitration seated in India, the court at the seat has supervisory jurisdiction under Section 2(1)(e) to hear a Section 34 challenge. An earlier Section 9 application did not attract Section 42 because the prior proceedings before the Madras High Court were not pressed, so later proceedings were not confined to that forum. An exclusive jurisdiction clause must be strictly construed and will not exclude a statutory Section 34 petition unless it clearly covers that proceeding. The dismissal for want of jurisdiction was therefore set aside and the award challenge restored for consideration on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197274