https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280957 Territorial jurisdiction under Sections 9 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was found unavailable where the substantive relief concerned control and possession of immovable property in Amritsar, because such disputes fall within Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and cannot be treated as mere personal obedience claims. The Court also noted that waiver, delay, or pleadings could not confer competence on a forum otherwise lacking subject-matter jurisdiction; Section 21 of the Code did not cure the defect. The petitions for interim protection and appointment of an arbitrator were therefore not maintainable before the Delhi forum and were dismissed. en-us Tue, 29 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 May 2019 17:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280957 Territorial jurisdiction under Sections 9 and 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was found unavailable where the substantive relief concerned control and possession of immovable property in Amritsar, because such disputes fall within Section 16(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and cannot be treated as mere personal obedience claims. The Court also noted that waiver, delay, or pleadings could not confer competence on a forum otherwise lacking subject-matter jurisdiction; Section 21 of the Code did not cure the defect. The petitions for interim protection and appointment of an arbitrator were therefore not maintainable before the Delhi forum and were dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 29 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280957