ANUJ KABRA AND ANR v. CL EDUCATE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CAREER LAUNCHER INDIA LTD.)
Discusses jurisdictional issues, arbitration, and interpretation of statutes, useful for understanding court powers and dispute resolution.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:9291
Decision Date: 17-06-2025
List of Laws
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Presidency Small Cause Court Act, 1882; Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887; Maharashtra Civil Courts Act, 1869; Right to Information Act, 2005; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Small Cause Courts Act
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: The judgment discusses Section 11 of the Act, noting that the applications were filed under this section. The judgment also mentions Section 16 of the Act, stating that the court's role is to make a reference to an arbitral tribunal, leaving it to the tribunal to deal with jurisdiction under this section. The judgment also mentions Section 12(1) of the Act, stating that the Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act to the parties within a period of two weeks from receipt of a copy of this Order.
- Presidency Small Cause Court Act, 1882: The judgment refers to this Act as the "Presidency Act", stating that agreements falling under its jurisdiction would exclusively fall in the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court established under this Act, ousting the jurisdiction of any arbitral tribunal.
- Provincial Small Cause Court Act, 1887: The judgment refers to this Act as the "Provincial Act", stating that the licensed premises are located in Vashi, Navi Mumbai, thereby attracting the jurisdiction of this Act. The judgment notes that the Provincial Act contains terms that are in pari materia and near identical to the provisions that fell for consideration in Central Warehousing Corporation. The judgment also discusses Section 26 of the Provincial Act, which pertains to suits or proceedings between licensors and licensees or landlords and tenants for recovery of possession of immovable property and license fees or rent. Specifically, Section 26(1) is discussed, noting that the Court of Small Causes shall have jurisdiction to entertain and try all suits and proceedings between a licensor and licensee, or a landlord and tenant, relating to the recovery of possession of any immovable property situated in the area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, or relating to the recovery of the license fee or charges or rent therefor, irrespective of the value of the subject-matter of such suits or proceedings. Section 26(2) is also mentioned, stating that nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to suits or proceedings for the recovery of possession of any immovable property or of license fee or charges or rent thereof, to which the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, the Bombay Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955, the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, or the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, or any other law for the time being in force, apply.
- Maharashtra Civil Courts Act, 1869: The judgment refers to this Act as the "Civil Courts Act". The judgment discusses Section 28 of the Act, specifically focusing on the power to invest Civil Judges with small cause powers. Section 28(1) is extracted, stating that the High Court may invest any Civil Judge with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes for the trial of suits cognizable by such courts up to such amount as it may deem proper, not exceeding in the case of a Civil Judge (Senior Division) twelve thousand rupees and in the case of a Civil Judge (Junior Division) Six thousand rupees. Section 28(2) is also extracted, stating that a Civil Judge (Senior Division) or a Civil Judge (Junior Division), who is invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under sub-section (1), shall continue to have such jurisdiction within the local limits of his ordinary jurisdiction so long and as often as he may fill the office of Civil Judge (Senior Division) or Civil Judge (Junior Division), as the case may be, without reference to the District in which he may be employed. Section 28(3) is also extracted, stating that the High Court may, whenever it thinks fit, withdraw such jurisdiction from any Civil Judge so invested. The judgment also mentions Section 24 of the Civil Courts Act, stating that a suit, which is otherwise cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, would be tried by such Civil Judge as regular civil suit in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, depending upon the pecuniary limits of its jurisdiction, as provided under Section 24 of the Civil Courts Act.
- Right to Information Act, 2005: The judgment mentions that the State Government confirmed that it has neither established any Small Causes Court having jurisdiction in the subject matter in Navi Mumbai, nor has it received any proposal for such establishment from the High Court, by a response dated March 4, 2025 from the state government under this Act.
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The judgment states that if the summary procedure and special jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court is not available, the parties would have to litigate in a civil court without the summary procedure of the Small Cause Court. The judgment also states that a suit, which is otherwise cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, would be tried by such Civil Judge as regular civil suit in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.
- Small Cause Courts Act: The judgment states that the Small Cause Courts Act deals with the jurisdiction therein to be exercised either by a Court of Small Causes established under Section 5 of the said Act or by a Civil Judge invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 28(1) of the Civil Courts Act.
🔒 For Members Only