Case Note & Summary
The Bombay High Court constituted a Full Bench to answer a reference on the question of law: whether a Small Cause Court under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is a court subordinate to the Bombay High Court on its original side within the meaning of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. This reference arose from two appeals filed by Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. against the refusal of a single judge of the High Court to grant temporary injunctions restraining the respondents from filing proceedings under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 in the Small Causes Court. The appellant had instituted two suits on the original side of the High Court for specific performance of lease agreements. In those suits, notices of motion were taken out seeking temporary injunction; the single judge rejected them by a common order dated 26 September 2006. The appellant then filed Appeal Nos. 295/2007 and 296/2007. When these appeals came for admission before a Division Bench on 19 April 2007, the Bench noted that a similar issue had arisen in Notice of Motion No. 1259/2005 in Suit No. 7/2004 and that the matter had been directed to be placed before a larger bench. The Division Bench admitted the appeals and directed that they be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench. Meanwhile, in another suit (Suit No. 514/1984, Aderbad Co-op. Hsg. Society), a learned single judge had framed questions regarding the power to grant injunction against proceedings before the Deputy Registrar under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and had referred them to a larger bench. That Notice of Motion (No. 828/2005) was later dismissed as infructuous on 12 August 2009, leaving only the present appeals for consideration. The Full Bench accordingly framed the precise question of law quoted above. The appellant contended that the Small Causes Court is subordinate to the High Court on its original side by virtue of the provisions of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, the Constitution of India, the Letters Patent and the Civil Procedure Code. Reliance was placed on judgments including William Jacks & Co. (India) Ltd. v. Nilima Dinesh Prasad, AIR 1992 Bom 126; Narayan Vithal Samant v. Jankibai Sitaram Samant, AIR 1915 Bom 146; Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. His Lordship the Honourable Mr. Justice Tarkunde, 67 BLR 214; and Pirbhai Khimji v. The Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway Company, (1872) 8 Bom HCJ 59. The respondents submitted that Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Small Causes Court, making it a court of coordinate jurisdiction and not subordinate to the High Court on its original side. They relied on Raizada Topandas v. Gorakhdas Gokalchand, AIR 1964 SC 1348 and Cotton Corporation of India v. United Industrial Bank Ltd., AIR 1983 SC 1272. The Full Bench commenced its analysis with Article 225 of the Constitution, which preserves the jurisdiction and law administered in existing High Courts immediately before the commencement of the Constitution. The court then referred to Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, which grants ordinary original civil jurisdiction to the High Court to receive, try and determine suits of every description subject to certain conditions. The judgment text provided is truncated before the reasoning is completed and the final decision is rendered, so the outcome of the reference remains unknown.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Subordination of Courts - Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 - The Full Bench was constituted to decide whether a Small Cause Court under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is a court subordinate to the Bombay High Court on its original side, thus enabling the High Court to grant an injunction restraining proceedings in such Small Cause Court. The court examined Article 225 of the Constitution, Clause 12 of the Letters Patent, and Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882. The appellant argued subordination based on these provisions, while the respondent contended that the Small Cause Court has exclusive jurisdiction and is a coordinate court. The judgment excerpt ends before the court's final determination. (Paras 1-8)
Issue of Consideration
With reference to the provisions of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act, whether Small Cause Court constituted under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act is a Court subordinate to the Bombay High Court on its original side?
Final Decision
The judgment text provided is truncated and does not contain the final determination of the Full Bench on the referred question.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Section 41(b) of the Specific Relief Act
- 1963
- determination of subordination of Small Cause Court to High Court
- Letters Patent original jurisdiction
- Article 225 of Constitution
