2007 (4) TMI 761 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Presidency Small Causes Court u/s 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882.
2. Applicability of arbitration agreements in disputes concerning recovery of possession and licence fees.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the Presidency Small Causes Court u/s 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882:
The Appellant's Arbitration Petition seeking relief u/s 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, was dismissed on the grounds that the dispute arose from a leave and licence agreement, thereby conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Presidency Small Causes Court u/s 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The Learned Single Judge relied on his previous judgment in Siemens Ltd. v. Captech Online Pvt. Ltd., Arbitration Petition No. 99 of 2004, and the Supreme Court's decision in Natraj Studio (P) Ltd. v. Navrang Studio AIR 1981 SC 537, which established that suits between licensors and licensees for recovery of possession and licence fees fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, barring the jurisdiction of Civil Courts by necessary implication.

2. Applicability of arbitration agreements in disputes concerning recovery of possession and licence fees:
The Appellant argued that the deletion of the non-obstante provision in Section 41 by Maharashtra Act 24 of 1984 was overlooked. However, the Court noted that the legislative history and the plain meaning of the statutory provision indicated that the amendment did not obliterate the exclusive jurisdiction of the Presidency Small Cause Courts. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent was to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to provide a comprehensive remedy within the Small Causes Court. The Supreme Court's rationale in Natraj Studio, which excluded arbitration agreements in disputes where the Small Causes Court had jurisdiction, was found applicable. The Court held that the creation of a special forum for adjudication of disputes between licensors and licensees by the legislature impliedly barred the jurisdiction of Civil Courts, thus precluding arbitration.

Conclusion:
The Court found no infirmity in the judgment and order appealed against and dismissed the appeal, upholding the exclusive jurisdiction of the Presidency Small Causes Court in matters concerning recovery of possession and licence fees between licensors and licensees. There was no order as to costs.