Gujarat High Court
Calorx Education And Research ... vs Shri Jalaram Education Trust ... on 27 October, 2021
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
C/AO/11/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 11 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 11 of 2021
=============================================
CALORX EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOUNDATION
Versus
SHRI JALARAM EDUCATION TRUST THROU TRUSTEE JAYENDRA C.
SHAH
=============================================
Appearance:
J SAGAR ASSOCIATES(8162) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR HARSHADRAY A DAVE(3461) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 27/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Mr. B.H Chhatrapati, the learned counsel on behalf
of the J. Sagar Associates, appearing for the appellant and Mr.
Harshadray Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
2. This Court passed the following order on 18.03.2021:
"Learned advocate for appellant -applicant has
submitted that the draft amendment in Civil Application No. 1
of 2021. The amendment is allowed in terms of the draft.
Necessary amendment be carried out accordingly.
Heard learned advocate Mr. BH Chhatrapati on behalf
of M/s. J. Sagar Associates for the appellant through video
conference.
Learned advocate Mr. BH Chhatrapati has submitted
that in the present case, the petitioner is the original
defendant and the respondents are the original plaintiffs.
Further, it is submitted that the learned trial Court has
heavily placed reliance upon the decision in the case of
Sukanya Holdings Private Limited Vs. Jayesh H. Pandya,
reported in 2003(0) GLHEL-SC 30704, which ought not to
have relied upon in view of two latest judgments upon which
he heavily places reliance. Not only that in the present case
C/AO/11/2021 ORDER DATED: 27/10/2021
the second agreement was not having the relief which was
narrated by the learned trial Court as mis-joinder of cause of
action since there cannot be joint as joinder of cause of
action. Further, there is no issue with regard to the
bifurcation of relief as such there is no overwrite of the said
provisions under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, by the party concern, hence impugned order is
erroneous.
The issue requires consideration Hence, issue, NOTICE
for final disposal returnable on 04.05.2021, subject to stand
taken by the respondents and convenience."
3. Mr. Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents states that he would be filing affidavit-in-reply in
the present appeal.
4. This appeal was extensively heard. The parties may seek
adjournment before the Court below.
5. Stand over to 24.11.2021.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J)
NEHA
