JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised various contentions and claimed that the appellant approached the executing Court at District Jalaun at Orai and filed Application/Objection 3 Ka under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which was registered as Miscellaneous Application No. 280 of 2014, the Court concerned wrongfully and illegally rejected the application 3 Ka on ground of maintainability, vide its order dated 19.3.2018, that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the application, which is subject of challenge in this First Appeal From Order. He further submitted that the proper forum where the appellant could have agitated his grievance was the Court of District Judge, Jalaun at Orai because the enforceability clause as contained in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 prescribes the forum/Court which can be appreciated by the concerned one. It means the Court, which is very much concerned with the subject-matter of the property in question will be the appropriate forum by virtue of the provisions contained under the Civil Procedure Code. Various principles of Civil Procedure Code are very much attracted and that way, jurisdiction ought to have been exercised in the case of the appellant, which was wrongly refused by the District Judge. 3. Considered the contention so raised and perused the impugned order dated 19.3.2018 passed by the District Judge Jalaun at Orai, whereby he has contemplated about the relief sought by way of moving Application 3 Ka under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Reconciliation Act, 1996 and opined that the original award was passed at Mumbai, therefore, the jurisdiction to entertain such application 3Ka is vested in the proper Court at Mumbai. 4. It is trite law that while dealing with the case concerning provisions of Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996, the place where the arbitral proceedings took place, would normally determine the jurisdiction of Court/forum where the award passed in arbitral proceedings, may be put to challenge. Here in this case, arbitral proceedings took place at Mumbai, therefore, any relief seeking cancellation or annulment of the award, can be sought at proper forum/Court at Mumbai and not at Orai at Jalaun. 5. Here in this case, arbitral proceedings took place at Mumbai, therefore, any relief seeking cancellation or annulment of the award, can be sought at proper forum/Court at Mumbai and not at Orai at Jalaun. 5. Jurisdiction is a substantive concept of law and no Court can proceed further, if the claim of a concerned person is not in line with the jurisdiction of the Court concerned where proceedings have been initiated. The word used in the Arbitration Act is ‘Court’ without any specification, then it cannot be said that it is upto the appellant to choose a Court at his convenience at any place in India. The Court vested with jurisdiction is the Court were the arbitral proceeding took place. The Court competent to exercise jurisdiction under Civil Procedure Code has been defined with accuracy and proceedings are to be taken at/in the proper Court having territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction. A Court which lacks jurisdiction to entertain an application/suit shall not entertain any claim raised by any person merely because some act specifies word ‘Court’ without necessary specification. However, a request has been made by the learned counsel that it was not proper for the District Judge Jalaun at Orai to have rejected straightway the application 3 Ka for the reasons that in case, any forum or Court other than the Court of District Judge, Jalaun at Orai is to be approached, then the application 3 Ka so presented before it may have been directed to be returned for presentation to the proper Court/forum, which was not done. 6. In view of above, it is obvious that the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai was not vested with the jurisdiction to proceed further in the case under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, then he had one more option among other to have returned the application for presentation to proper forum having jurisdiction. 7. Thus, it is hereby directed that the appellant may move an application simplicitor before the District Judge, Jalaun at Orai asking for return of his application 3 Ka provided the appellant appears before the District Judge within a period of two weeks from today and in case, any such application is so moved, then the application 3 Ka may be returned, as provided under relevant provisions of Civil Procedure Code. 8. 8. With the aforesaid observation, this First Appeal From Order is disposed off.