High Court while exercising original jurisdiction is not City Civil Court, Madras.

(Prayer: Original Side Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 18.11.2002 made in O.A.No.970 of 2001 on the file of this Court.)

Honourable The Chief Justice:

The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is, which is the principal civil court in respect of matters arising under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’ for short) where the value of the subject matter is less than Rs.10 lakhs. The question is, whether the Madras High Court exercising ordinary original civil jurisdiction under the Letters Patent or the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court constituted under the Chennai City Civil Court Act, 1892, will exercise jurisdiction in respect of matters under the Act involving the value of not exceeding Rs.10 lakhs? In order to appreciate the issue raised before us, it is necessary to set out briefly the relevant facts that have given rise to this appeal.

2. An application was filed by the appellant against the respondents under Section 9 of the Act to grant an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents and their men from in any way alienating or encumbering the property belonging to the second respondent more specifically described in the schedule pending disposal of the arbitration proceedings. The claim of the appellant against the respondents is for a sum of Rs.3,13,213.28. The Registry raised an objection with reference to the maintainability of the application before the learned single Judge on the ground that the claim amount is less than Rs.10 lakhs and, as such, the application under Section 9 of the Act ought to have been filed only before the Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai and not before this Court. The learned single Judge inter alia held that under ordinary original jurisdiction, this Court cannot entertain the claim, which is less than Rs.10 lakhs and, as such, it has to be filed before the City Civil Court. Consequently, the objection raised by the Registry was upheld and the petition was directed to be returned for presentation to proper Court.

3. Under Section 9 of the Act, a party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced, can move the Court to preserve the property and other matters enumerated therein. The expression ‘Court’ is defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act, which reads as follows: 2(1)(e). Court means the principal civil Court of original jurisdiction in a district, and includes the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original civil jurisdiction, having jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject-matter of the arbitration if the same had been the subject-matter of a suit, but does not include any civil court of a grade inferior to such principal civil Court, or any Court of Small Causes.

4. From a bare perusal of the definition, it is clear that the expression Court as defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the Act would include a Court having jurisdiction to decide the question forming the subject matter of arbitration if the same had been the subject matter of a suit. High Courts are included in the definition, but not any civil court of a grade inferior to the principal civil court or any Court of Small Causes. This definition of Court is narrower as compared with Section 2(c) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Under the 1940 Act, it was every civil Court, but now it is the principal civil court of original jurisdiction, which is empowered to deal with the matters arising under the Act. A particular expression is often defined by the Legislature by using the word means or the word includes. Sometimes, the words means and includes are used. The use of the word means indicates that definition is hard and fast definition, and no other meaning can be assigned to the expression than is put down in that definition. The word includes when used, enlarges the meaning of the expression defined so as to comprehend not only such