The main legal point established in the judgment is that all subsequent applications arising out of arbitration proceedings, including execution proceedings, must be made in the Court where the initial application under Part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was made.

1. This Chamber Summons is taken out by the applicant / award creditor for the deposit of the decretal amount, for ordering particulars of properties, assets and means of the award debtor, for further orders under Order 21 Rule 41 of the CPC upon non-compliance of the order of disclosure, for arrest of the award debtor, for issue of a precept for attaching the properties belonging to the award debtor which are outside this Court's territorial jurisdiction and such other reliefs.

2. The award debtors reside and carry on business in Hooghly, West Bengal. Their properties are in the state of West Bengal. The applicants / award creditor had applied under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) for obtaining certain interim reliefs pending the arbitration in the Court in Calcutta. The amount of loan granted by the award creditor was paid in Mumbai and was repayable in Mumbai. The parties agreed to have their arbitration in Mumbai. The arbitration has been held and concluded in Mumbai and the award has been passed in Mumbai. Mumbai Court, as a District Court, would have jurisdiction to execute that decree as the Court passing the decree. Even if the properties of the award debtors are outside the territorial limits of this Court's jurisdiction, this Court, would transfer the decree for a execution to another Court upon the application of the award creditor. Until such time as that is done it would therefore be the executing Court.

3. Upon these admitted facts the challenge to the territorial jurisdiction of this Court by the award debtor would have to be considered. Counsel on behalf of the award debtor claimed that though the decree may be otherwise executable in Mumbai, under Section 42 of the Act the award creditor having made the earlier application for interim reliefs under Section 9 of the Act, all other proceedings including the proceedings in execution can be taken out by the award creditor in the same Court and hence this application is not maintainable in this Court.

4. The parties have relied upon diverse judgments in this respect. The judgments consider the definition of Court under Section 2(1) (e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), the enforceability of awards under Section 36 of the Act, the Court which passed the decree and the Court to which the decree is transferred under Sections 37, 38 & 39 of the CPC.

5. In the earliest of the decision relied upon by counsel on behalf of the award debtor, the Single judge of this Court in the case of Kotak Mahindra Finance Ltd. Vs. T. Thomas Educational Trust & Ors., 2003(5) Bom C R 579 considered the Court's territorial jurisdiction in an arbitration. That aspect is not much in dispute. It is held that the place of arbitration does not confer jurisdiction on the Court. The test to be applied is whether the suit could have been instituted before this Court and the jurisdiction has been considered in respect of the subject matter and not the pecuniary jurisdiction.

6. In the case of Akola Janata Commercial Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Raju Natthuji Badhe, 2011(2) Mh L J 427 the Division Bench of this Court considered the definition of a Court under Section 2(1) (e) of the Act and the definition of an executing Court and the Court to which the decree is transferred under Sections 37, 38 and 39 of the CPC. Under section 36 of the Act the award can be enforced under the CPC in the same manner as if it were a decree. This would be by the Court defined under Section 2 (1) (e) as the Court having jurisdiction to decide questions forming the subject matter of the arbitration. In this case it would undoubtedly be this Court. Since the award has been passed in Mumbai this Court would be the Court which must be taken to be the “the Court which passed the decree” under Section 37 of the CPC. Consequently under Section 38 of the CPC the decree would be executed by this Court which passed it or the Court to which it sent for execution. Und