https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281340 Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to Part I proceedings and does not bar enforcement of a foreign award under Part II, so objections filed under Section 34 in another court did not exclude the present petition. The Court also found that its own pecuniary jurisdiction was not made out on the petitioner's earlier pleadings and the amount involved, which had already been treated as within the District Court's jurisdiction. A second execution petition was further held not maintainable where an identical execution was already pending before the District Court within the same territorial sphere. The enforcement petition failed on jurisdiction and maintainability grounds. en-us Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jun 2019 11:07:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281340 Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is confined to Part I proceedings and does not bar enforcement of a foreign award under Part II, so objections filed under Section 34 in another court did not exclude the present petition. The Court also found that its own pecuniary jurisdiction was not made out on the petitioner's earlier pleadings and the amount involved, which had already been treated as within the District Court's jurisdiction. A second execution petition was further held not maintainable where an identical execution was already pending before the District Court within the same territorial sphere. The enforcement petition failed on jurisdiction and maintainability grounds. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 19 Dec 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281340