1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.1 OF 2006 Lalit Agencies. ..Appellants. v/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. ..Respondents. Mr.Manoj Kadam for Appellant. Mr.Chirag Balsara a/w. C.D.Patil i/b. Junnarkar & Associates. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED :- SEPTEMBER 11, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. By consent, Appeal is taken up for final hearing forthwith. This Appeal takes exception to the order passed by the District Judge, Raigad, Alibag in Mis. Civil Application No.45 of 2002 filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dated 22nd June, 2005. The short question that arises for consideration in this Appeal is: whether the remedy of arbitration proceedings can be invoked in respect of leave and 2 licence agreement having regard to the exclusive jurisdiction conferred on the Civil Court under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act, 1882 ? This issue is no more res integra. The question was squarely considered by the Division Bench of our High Court in Appeal No.909 of 2006 decided on April 25, 2007 in the case Carona Ltd. V/s. Sumangal Holdings. The Division Bench of our High Court has confirmed the view taken by the Single Judge of this Court holding that if the dispute between the parties arises out of agreement of leave and licence, Presidency Small Causes Court has exclusive jurisdiction over the subject matter under section 41 of the Presidency Small Causes Courts Act, 1882. Applying the said decision, this Appeal ought to succeed, for it necessarily follows that the proceedings under section 34 could not have been invoked by the Respondent in the fact situation of the present case. 3. Hence, this Appeal is allowed. The impugned Judgment dated 22nd June, 2005 in Misc. Civil Application No.45 of 2002 is set aside. As a consequence, the said Application preferred by the Respondents will stand dismissed with liberty to the parties to pursue their remedy before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 3 4. I am informed that the Appellant has already instituted suit for recovery of outstanding dues against the Respondents, which is stated to be pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Panvel. The said Suit will have to proceed on its own merits in accordance with law. All questions that may arise for consideration in the said suit will have to be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned decision or for that matter, the present order. 5. During the course of the hearing, I am informed that the parties are exploring possibility of settlement. If the settlement takes place, nothing would survive for consideration in the aforesaid Civil Suit, in which case, the controversy in question can be disposed of on those terms. However, the Respondents will have to initiate settlement process and expedite the settlement process, which should be culminated within four weeks from today and the settlement terms can be produced before the appropriate Court, on the basis of which the said proceedings can be disposed of. 7. It is made clear that if no settlement terms are produced before the concerned Court within four weeks from today, the concerned Court shall not entertain the request for adjournment at the instance of the Respondents 4 on any count thereafter and instead, proceed to decide the proceedings pending before it as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of commencement of the trial. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)