JUDGMENT : J.K. Maheshwari, C.J. 1. This order shall govern disposal of all the aforesaid cases arising out of the order dated 11.7.2018 passed by the Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Haryana. 2. Challenging the order dated 11.7.2018, passed by the Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Haryana, by its meeting as an interim measure as a Garnishee Award, the petitioners have come before this Court. 3. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings are referred from WP No. 34399 of 2018. Learned Counsel representing the respondents has raised the question of entertainability of the writ petition, being lack of jurisdiction to entertain the cases arising out of the order passed in the State of Haryana in the Courts of State of Andhra Pradesh. It is submitted, that the original award was passed on 21.6.2010 by the 1st respondent-Council, against which an appeal was preferred before the Court in the State of Haryana and those proceedings were culminated even upto the Supreme Court. The review preferred before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was also dismissed. Now, for execution of the original award, an application was filed before the Council in Haryana, wherein the impugned order has been passed. Learned Counsel for the respondents has referred Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter be referred to as 'Act') to contend that under Section 42 of the Act, the Court, who invoked the jurisdiction for arbitral proceedings, shall have jurisdiction to entertain all the subsequent applications and arbitral proceedings but not in any other Court, therefore, if the petitioners are having any grievance against the impugned order passed on 11.7.2018, the appeal may be filed as per Section 37(2) of the Act, in appropriate forum, and the writ jurisdiction, that too before this Court is not available. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the petitioners in reply to the said contention has referred the impugned award, challenging its validity showing inequities, balance of convenience and irreparable injury, on the ground that it has been passed, without affording due opportunity, in the shape of review, which is not permissible to Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Haryana. Therefore, applying the principle of forum convenience, the petitioners have rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, applying the principle of forum convenience, the petitioners have rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India, AIR 2014 SC 3607 and a judgment of the Division Bench of the erstwhile combined High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, in Nuziveedu Seeds (P) Limited, Hyderabad v. Registrar, Protection of Plant Variety and Farmers' Rights Authority, National Academy of Agricultural Sciences, New Delhi and another, 2015 (3) ALD 600 (DB), to submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the garnishee is situated, within the limits of Andhra Pradesh State, this petition may be entertained. 5. After hearing learned Counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the undisputed facts of the case, it is quite clear that Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council passed the final award on 21.6.2010. The said award was challenged by filing appeal before the higher forum in the State of Haryana, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the counter appeal preferred before the Court at Haryana was dismissed. Thereafter, Hon'ble the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP, and the review preferred was also dismissed on 30.7.2018. Thereafter, further recourse has been taken up before the Council, in which some orders were passed and by the order impugned dated 11.7.2018 certain directions have been issued in the shape of Garnishee award. In the said context, if we see the provision of Section 42 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, which reveals, unless and otherwise expressly provided in the first part of the Act, or by any other law for the time being in force, where with respect to an arbitration agreement, any application under Part-I has been made in a Court, that Court shall alone have jurisdiction over the arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and the arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and not in other Court. 6. It is not in dispute that the arbitral proceedings were brought in Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, against which appeal was filed in Haryana, and the award was confirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court finally. 6. It is not in dispute that the arbitral proceedings were brought in Haryana Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, against which appeal was filed in Haryana, and the award was confirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court finally. It is also not in dispute, that in respect of the said award, a claim is made, and the present proceedings are based on subsequent applications filed before the Council at Haryana. In the said context, as per the spirit of the wording of Section 42 of the Act, it is clear like day light that all subsequent applications arising out of an agreement or arbitral proceedings shall lie before the same Court and not in any other Court. Thus, it can safely be held that for the proceedings, which are initiated in Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation Council and in other Court at Haryana, by the parties. After dismissal of the special leave to appeal by Hon'ble the Apex Court as discussed, the subsequent proceedings would lie before the same Court in the State as per Section 42 of the Act, relating to Part-I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. In the said facts and circumstances, this Court do not have jurisdiction to entertain these petitions and to set aside the award passed in subsequent proceedings by the Small Enterprises Facilitation Council at Haryana, on an application arising out of the same arbitration proceedings. In that view of the matter in our considered opinion, these writ petitions are not entertainable and liable to be dismissed. 7. The judgment cited by learned Counsel for the petitioners in the case of Nawal Kishore Sharma's case (supra), relates to a fact wherein the issue with respect to jurisdiction in the context of having part cause of action as per Section 20(c) of CPC was discussed, relying upon Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, and lay down the law. While in the present case, the jurisdiction of the Court in all other subsequent proceedings is expressly barred by the provisions of the Act as discussed, therefore, the judgment relied upon by learned Counsel for the petitioners, does not apply. The another judgment in Nuziveedu Seeds (P) Limited, Hyderabad's case (supra), relied by the Counsel for petitioners elucidating the principle of forum convenience also does not apply in the facts of the present case. The another judgment in Nuziveedu Seeds (P) Limited, Hyderabad's case (supra), relied by the Counsel for petitioners elucidating the principle of forum convenience also does not apply in the facts of the present case. In the facts and circumstances and to the context, it is clear that all proceedings are filed in the case before Small Enterprises Facilitation Council, Haryana, and in other Courts at Haryana however all subsequent proceedings would lie before same Court as per Section 42 of the Act. Thus, the petitioners cannot derive the benefit of the above said judgment, however, this argument cannot be countenanced. 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion, both the writ petitions are not maintainable before this Court, accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. In consequence of dismissal of the above writ petitions, the CRJPs., are also dismissed. No costs. As a sequel all the pending miscellaneous applications in these cases are closed.