Bhuvnesh Kumar Pareek v. M/s Golden Plates Banquet Private Limited, Having Its

Judgment

1. M/s Golden Plates Banquet Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At Dsm 138, First Floor Dlf Tower, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi 110015 Through Its Authorized

Representative Ms. Mohini Chaudhary ----Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff

2. S. Nand Kumar And Company Pvt. Ltd., Having Its Registered Office At L-3, Krishna Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur 302001 (Raj.) Through Its Director ----Proforma Respondents/Defendant No. 1 Connected With S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 32/2025 S. Nand Kumar And Company Pvt. Ltd., Having Registered Address L-3, Krishna Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur 302001 Email Bgkotahwala @gamil.com Through Director. ----Petitioner-Defendant No. 1 Versus

1. M/s Golden Plates Banquets Pvt. Ltd., Having Registered Office-Dasm 138, First Floor Dlf Tower, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi 110015 Through Authorised Representative-Sushri Mohini Choudhary. ----Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff [2025:RJ-JP:27801] (2 of 6) [CR-27/2025]

2. Shubham Resort Pvt. Ltd., Having Registered Address-A- 250, Defense Colony, New Delhi 110014, E-182, Ram Path Shyam Nagar Jaipur And National Highway-11, Jaipur Delhi Highway, Tala Mod Ke Paas, Acharol 303002, Jaipur, Email [email protected] Through Director Bhuwnesh Kumar Pareek. ----Respondent-Defendant No. 2 For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. S. Hora with Mr. Kartik Agarwal in C.R. No. Mr. Girraj Bardhar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kapil Bardhar & Mr. Ayush Sharma, & Ms. Anshulika Pareek & Mr. Suresh Bairwa in Cr. No. 32/2025 For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal Mr. Ishan Verma Ms. Tisha Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 31 /07/2025 These civil revision petitions have been filed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (for short 'the defendants') under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated

15.01.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for short 'the trial Court'), by which the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent No. 1-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in which defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [2025:RJ-JP:27801] (3 of 6) [CR-27/2025] but the trial Court vide order dated 15.01.2025 wrongly dismissed the application filed by the defendants. Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because by way of suit, plaintiff wanted to execute the business conducting agreement dated 25.01.2023, and only commercial Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. As per the plaintiff's contention, disputed property was transferred to S. Nand Kumar and Company Pvt. Ltd., and as per the agreement dated 25.01.2023 arbitration proceedings are maintainable as such the dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 has already been referred to the Arbitrator. The agreement between Shubham Resort Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Golden Plates Banquets Private Ltd. was terminated by legal notice dated

17.04.2024. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Commercial Court No. 1, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur, and the Commercial Court vide order dated 02.09.2024 dismissed the application observing that after termination of the said agreement, the plaintiff had no right over the said property. The plaintiff could only seek compensation in terms of Section 64 of the Easement Act. The plaintiff challenged the said order dated 02.09.2024 before this Court by filing DBCMA No. 4192/2024 and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.10.2024 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the commercial Court. Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that as per the conditions of the agreement, civil court had no jurisdiction because arbitration proceedings are going on. In the plaint, contention of the plaintiff that arbitration proceedings may take [2025:RJ-JP:27801] (4 of 6) [CR-27/2025] time is not the ground to file the suit. Whether agreement was wrongly terminated or not, is to be decided by the Arbitrator and not by the civil Court. So, order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be dismissed on the ground of no cause of action and for want of jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

1. T. Arvindandam V. T.V. Satypal & Anr. reported in (1977) 4 SCC 467.

2. K. Akbar Ali V.K. Umar Khan & Ors. reported in (2021) 14 SCC 51.

3. Key Pee Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. V. Shahjahan Begum reported in MANU/RH/0432/2015.

4. Madan Lal Vaid V. Nand Kumar Walia & Ors reported in MANU/DE/1282/2001.

5. Holy Health & Education Society V. Delhi Development Authority reported in MANU/DE/0413/1999.

6. Kvaerner Cementation India Ltd. V. Bajranglal Agarwal & Anr. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 2014.

7. Sardar Harnam Puri V. Union of India reported in 2005 SCC Online Raj. 84.

8. Naolin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. Kalpana Industries reported in 2024 SCC Online TS 1618.

9. Disrict Cricket Association V. Rajasthan Cricket Association & Ors. in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 70/2020 decided on 14.09.2020. [2025:RJ-JP:27801] (5 of 6) [CR-27/2025] Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that plaintiff and S. Nand Kumar and Company Pvt. Ltd. had no privity of contract. No arbitration agreement was executed between them. Defendants wrongly terminated the agreement and transferred the property to S. Nand Kumar and Company Pvt. Ltd. So, the plaintiff rightly filed the suit before the Civil Court. The trial Court while dismissing the application came to the conclusion that objection with regard to jurisdiction as well as cause of action would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the petition filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the plaintiff. It is an admitted position that an agreement between the plaintiff and the Shubham Resort Pvt. Ltd. was executed on

25.01.2023. The said agreement was terminated by legal notice dated 17.04.2024, against which the plaintiff filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the Commercial Court. The Commercial Court vide order dated

02.09.2024 dismissed the application. The plaintiff challenged the said order before this Court by filing the DBCMA No. 4192/2024, The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.10.2024 dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the commercial Court. By way of suit, the plaintiff sought the relief with regard to agreement dated 25.01.2023 which was executed between plaintiff and Shubham Resort Pvt. Ltd. In my considered [2025:RJ-JP:27801] (6 of 6) [CR-27/2025] opinion, the trial Court had committed an error in entertaining the present suit because as per the agreement, only arbitration proceedings are maintainable, therefore, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. So, the petition filed by the defendants deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, the petitions filed by the defendants are allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for want of cause of action and jurisdiction. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/92-93