https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197276 Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 confers exclusive jurisdiction only when a valid application in a reference brings the arbitration proceedings under a court's control. A petition that was filed only for a declaration on an arbitrator's appointment and later became infructuous, without any adjudication or continuing seisin over the arbitration, did not oust the jurisdiction of another competent court. On that basis, the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction because the goods were delivered at Bombay and the contractual performance connected the dispute with that forum. The petition for extension of time to make the award was therefore maintainable before the Bombay High Court. en-us Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jan 2018 17:35:45 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197276 Section 31(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 confers exclusive jurisdiction only when a valid application in a reference brings the arbitration proceedings under a court's control. A petition that was filed only for a declaration on an arbitrator's appointment and later became infructuous, without any adjudication or continuing seisin over the arbitration, did not oust the jurisdiction of another competent court. On that basis, the Bombay High Court had jurisdiction because the goods were delivered at Bombay and the contractual performance connected the dispute with that forum. The petition for extension of time to make the award was therefore maintainable before the Bombay High Court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=197276