[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Jagdeepbhai Piyushkumar Choliya vs Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd on 21 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/803/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR RESTORATION) NO. 803 of 2026
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/6481/2016
==========================================================
JAGDEEPBHAI PIYUSHKUMAR CHOLIYA
Versus
MOTILAL OSWAL SECURITIES LTD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS TEJAL K SHAH(2719) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DISHA N NANAVATY(2957) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT
Date : 21/04/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard Ms. Tejal K. Shah, learned Advocate for the applicant,
and Ms. Disha N. Nanavaty, learned Advocate for the
opponent.
2. The draft amendment is allowed, to be carried out forthwith.
3. The present application is filed seeking the restoration of
Special Civil Application No. 6481 of 2016, which was
dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.06.2025, wherein, the
following has been observed:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/803/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
"1. Today, the priority was sought by the respondent in the matter.
2. When the matter was called out, none was present for the
petitioner and learned advocates Ms.Disha N. Nanavati appearing
for the respondent is present. This matter is of the year 2016,
listed final hearing in old matters.
3. After going through the matter, prima facie, it appears that the
present application is filed against the concurrent finding of the
Appellate Court as well as the Small Causes Court to the effect
that there was an arbitration agreement between the parties,
whereby as per Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996, the matter is required to be decided by an arbitrator. The
order sheet suggests that due to the stay granted by this Court, no
progress has been made so far in the matter.
4. In the absence of the learned advocate for the petitioner, it
would not be appropriate for this Court to hear and decide the
matter ex parte. So, there is no option left but to dismiss the matter
for non-prosecution.
5. Thus, the matter is dismissed for default for non-prosecution.
Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith. No order as
to costs."
4. There is a delay of around 162 days in filing the restoration
application. As such, no sufficient cause is made out by the
applicant seeking condonation of delay of 162 days in filing the
restoration application, except the fact narrated that earlier in
point of time, the applicant had filed one restoration
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/803/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
application being F/MCA/22975 of 2025, but the same was
dismissed as the applicant did not remove the office objection.
It appears that there was no liberty reserved for filing a fresh
restoration application, but such wrong statement has been
made by the applicant in paragraph No. 3 of the application.
5. Ms. Shah, learned Advocate for the applicant, would request
this Court that considering the facts and circumstances, and as
there was no mala fide intention on the part of the applicant to
not file the restoration application in time, this Court may take
lenient view with reasonable cost and the prayers made in this
application may be allowed.
6. Per contra, Ms. Nanavaty, learned Advocate for the opponent,
would vehemently oppose this application contending inter alia
that despite granting a reasonable opportunity to the applicant-
original petitioner, he did not attend the proceedings seriously,
which ultimately resulted into its dismissal. It is submitted that
in the cognate writ petition being SCA No. 6482 of 2016 filed
by other similarly situated petitioner against the opponent
herein came to be dismissed by this Court on 19.09.2025. It is
further submitted that no sufficient cause is made out by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/803/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
applicant in filing the application and the delay in filing the
restoration application is nothing but direct tactic on the part
of the applicant, which may not be entertained by this Court.
7. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
respective parties and upon perusal of the application, it
appears that a wrong statement has been made by the applicant
in paragraph No. 3 of this application that in the earlier
restoration application which was dismissed for non-removal
of office objections, at that time, no liberty was reserved in
favour of the applicant to file a fresh application, inasmuch as
this Court's order dated 04.09.2025 only granted time to
remove office objections to applicant and other applicants and
as such no liberty reserved. The aforesaid order dated
04.09.2025 passed by this Court reads thus:
"Office objections to be removed on or before 01/10/2025,
failing which the matters will stand dismissed for default
without reference to the Court."
8. Apart from the wrong statement made by the applicant, there is
no explanation worth name submitted by applicant to make
out any sufficient cause in filing the restoration application
after period of 162 days. When there is no sufficient cause
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/803/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
made out by applicant, this Court would not like to entertain
such type of application.
9. Lastly, it would not be out of place to mention that the main
petition being Special Civil Application No. 6481 of 2016 was
listed with Special Civil Application No. 6482 of 2016 and both
were dismissed for non-prosecution on 28.06.2025. The
petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 6482 of 2016 got his
petition restored back on its file and the same was adjudicated
by this Court on merits on 19.09.2025. Whereas, the reason
best known to the applicant herein, he chooses to file the
application after the roster of this Court got changed. It is
pertinent to observe that due to prevailing rules of this Court,
upon dismissing the matter for default and roster change, this
Court would not be in a position to take up the main matter,
thereby, in a given case, the main matter gets restored back on
its file, this Court would not be in a position to decide the lis
between the parties on merits and eventually, the litigant will
avoid the hearing of the matter before the Court concerned.
10. Having considered all these aspects taken into account,
according to my view, no case is made out by the applicant to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/803/2026 ORDER DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
interfere with the order passed by this Court on 28.06.2025.
11. Accordingly the present application lacks merits and requires
to be rejected, which is hereby rejected. There shall be no order
as to costs.
(MAULIK J. SHELAT, J)
NILESH
