Advocates Appeared:
Kunal Katariya, Adv., P. Bandodkar, Adv., A.D. Bhobe, Adv.

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case Ifin Commodities Limited - Appellant Versus Ayesha Madgavkar, Having Office At Nizari Bhawan - Respondent:

Case Details and Jurisdiction * The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Goa Bench, disposed of appeals under Arbitration No. 7 to 14 of 2018, challenging a District Judge's order in Panaji. (!) * The primary legal issue was whether the District Judge at Panaji had jurisdiction to entertain petitions under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. (!) * The High Court held that the District Judge at Panaji lacked jurisdiction because the seat of arbitration was Mumbai, as per the MCX Business Rules and the agreement between the parties, which conferred exclusive jurisdiction on courts in Mumbai. (!) (!) * The Court clarified that the choice of seat for arbitration acts as an exclusive jurisdiction clause for supervisory powers, overriding territorial jurisdiction arguments based on where the transaction occurred. (!)

Facts of the Dispute * The First Respondent (Mr. Anil Madgavkar) and his family members invested money with the Appellant (Ifin Commodities Ltd.) through an intermediary, 3P World, allegedly suffering losses due to unauthorized trades and fraud. (!) * It was alleged that an authorized signatory of 3P World admitted to illegal trading and issued a cheque for Rs. 5 crores as reimbursement, which was not honored. (!) * The Arbitral Tribunal rejected the claims in all seven references, holding that the cheque issuance was a private arrangement between the First Respondent and the 3P World signatory, not binding on the Appellant. (!) * The District Judge set aside the Arbitral Award and allowed the claim for a balance amount of Rs. 80,78,797/- with interest. (!) (!)

Key Legal Holdings * Jurisdiction: The objection to the jurisdiction of the District Judge at Panaji was valid. The Court ruled that an application under Section 34 is not an original proceeding where a "reply" can be filed, and objections to jurisdiction can be raised suo motu. Furthermore, the District Judge's reliance on the petitioners challenging an impleadment order before the High Court did not constitute an admission of Panaji's jurisdiction. (!) (!) (!) * Power to Modify Award: The Court held that under Section 34 of the Act, the court cannot correct errors of the Arbitral Tribunal or grant a claim that was rejected by the Tribunal. The court can only quash or set aside the award, leaving the parties to initiate fresh arbitration proceedings if desired. (!) (!) (!) * Service of Process: The issue of proper service on Respondents No. 2 and 3 was deemed unnecessary to decide because the District Judge had not allowed any claim against them, and the findings regarding the private arrangement could not bind them as they were not parties to the arbitration agreement. (!)

Final Order * The appeals were allowed. (!) * The impugned judgment and order of the learned District Judge at Panaji were set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. (!) * The Respondent No. 1 was directed to seek appropriate legal remedies before the correct forum (courts in Mumbai). (!) * The signed copy of the Arbitral Award was ordered to be returned to the Respondent No. 1. (!)