TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the deletion of the non-obstante clause in Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, removed the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes in disputes between licensors and licensees concerning recovery of possession and licence fees; (ii) Whether a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable in respect of such disputes.
Issue (i): Whether the deletion of the non-obstante clause in Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, removed the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes in disputes between licensors and licensees concerning recovery of possession and licence fees.
Analysis: The amended provision retained the legislative scheme conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Small Causes over disputes between licensors and licensees relating to possession and licence fees, subject to the exceptions expressly stated in sub-section (2). The legislative history showed that the amendment was intended to remove a minor inconsistency and not to abrogate the special forum created by the statute. The object of the provision, read with the appeal under Section 42, supported the continued exclusivity of that forum.
Conclusion: The deletion of the non-obstante clause did not destroy the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes.
Issue (ii): Whether a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was maintainable in respect of such disputes.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of Section 41, together with the public policy underlying the creation of a special forum for licensor-licensee disputes, meant that such disputes could not be taken outside the statutory forum by resort to arbitration. The principle applied was the same as that recognised in relation to similar rent-control legislation: where the legislature creates an exclusive forum for disputes of a defined kind, private agreement cannot displace that mandate. On that basis, the arbitration petition for relief concerning possession and security was not maintainable.
Conclusion: The petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was not maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the special statutory forum under Section 41 continued to govern licensor-licensee possession disputes, and the attempt to secure arbitral relief for such matters was impermissible.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute creates an exclusive forum for a defined category of landlord-tenant or licensor-licensee disputes, the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts and arbitral recourse is excluded by necessary implication notwithstanding deletion of a non-obstante clause, if the legislative scheme and purpose continue to require determination by the special forum.
TaxTMI 
