https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287783 The Bombay High Court held that "court" under Section 2(c) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 means a civil court competent to decide the subject-matter if it arose in a suit, so territorial jurisdiction was not confined to the place where the whole cause of action arose; because the parties resided within the court's jurisdiction and the dispute could be tried there, the award could be received on file. On the merits of Clause 5, the court construed the joint valuation mechanism as requiring participation of both sides and a third neutral pancha, and found no authority for one nominee to proceed alone. The purported award was therefore without authority and liable to be set aside. en-us Thu, 02 Jul 1942 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 May 2020 13:39:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287783 The Bombay High Court held that "court" under Section 2(c) of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 means a civil court competent to decide the subject-matter if it arose in a suit, so territorial jurisdiction was not confined to the place where the whole cause of action arose; because the parties resided within the court's jurisdiction and the dispute could be tried there, the award could be received on file. On the merits of Clause 5, the court construed the joint valuation mechanism as requiring participation of both sides and a third neutral pancha, and found no authority for one nominee to proceed alone. The purported award was therefore without authority and liable to be set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 02 Jul 1942 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287783