HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Review Petition No. 106/2019
Deepesh Rajpal S/o Shri Satyendra Rajpal, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o 401, GBH Emerald Lane No. 6 320 Rajapark, Jaipur-302004
----Petitioner
Versus
Krishna Killa S/o Kailash Killa, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Killa
Building, Gs Road, Christian Basti, Guwahati, Assam 781005
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suveer Gaur and Mr. Dhruv Tailor on behalf of Mr. Ajatshatru Mina For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE Order 04/03/2021
1. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner.
2. Review has been sought of the judgment and order dated 23.07.2019 passed in S.B. Arbitration Application No.100/2018, whereby the application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by the present review petitioner came to be dismissed. In a reasoned judgment, the Hon'ble Single Judge concluded as follows:-
".........My conclusion therefore is that in this view of the matter, the Co-founders' Agreement dated 22.2.2016 having been wholly and fully superseded and altered by the SRA dated 8.3.2017, no resort thereto either for the purpose of ascertainment of the applicant's rights viz-a-viz the non applicant or for the purpose of appointment of Arbitrator with reference to the dispute resolution mechanism therein provided can arise.
(Downloaded on 11/03/2021 at 08:47:44 PM)
(2 of 2) [CRW-106/2019] Resultantly, the application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 under consideration is without merit and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed."
3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the parties had entered into a Separation and Release Agreement (SRA) dated 08.03.2017. He submits that the Hon'ble Single Judge placed reliance on the said agreement which he claims is an outcome of fraud. Consequently, once the finding has been noted by the Hon'ble Single Judge, the petitioner is in-fact prevented from seeking any other remedy that may be available to him in law. Hence, the present review petition.
4. After perusing the impugned judgment and after hearing the learned counsel for the review petitioner, this Court is not satisfied that any ground of review has been made out. However, it may be observed here that any conclusion of the Court has to be considered in the context in which the issue arose for consideration and not otherwise.
5. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the review petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed.
(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ Kamlesh Kumar/Harshit/S-41 (Downloaded on 11/03/2021 at 08:47:44 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)