Rajasthan High Court
Jaipur Municipal Corporation ... vs Ekajal Private Limited on 8 April, 2021
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 25/2021
1. Jaipur Municipal Corporation (Heritage), Heritage
Headquarter Building, Badi Chopad, Behind Hawa Mahal,
Jaipur-302001 Through Commissioner
2. Jaipur Municipal Corporation (Greater), Pandit Deen Dayal
Bhawan, Lal Kothi Tonk Road, Jaipur-302015 Through
Commissioner
----Petitioners
Versus
Ekajal Private Limited, Registered Office Dhula House, Bapu
Bazaar, P.o. Jaipur-302003 And Corporate Office 1, Karni Vihar,
Panchiawala Jaipur-302034 Through Its Director Paras
Bachhawat.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Alok Garg, Adv. with
Ms. Khushboo Dadheech, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M. M. Ranjan, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Rohan Agarwal, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
Date of Reserve : 06/04/2021
Date of Pronouncement : 08/04/2021
By way of this revision petition, petitioners have challenged
the order of Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-II
dated 08.01.2021 in which learned trial court dismissed the
application filed by the petitioners under Order 7 Rule 1(d) read
with Sections 6, 10 and 11 of Commercial Court Act, 2015.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent
had filed an application under Section 9 of Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 before the learned District and Sessions
(2 of 4) [CR-25/2021]
Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur which was transferred for
adjudication to the court of learned Additional District Judge No.3,
Jaipur Metropolitan-II.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners
have filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) read with
Sections 6, 10 and 11 of Commercial Court Act, 2015. Learned
counsel for the petitioners also submits that learned trial court has
committed serious error in rejecting the application and not
considering the specific pleading made by the respondent in the
application under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that a bare
perusal of the application shows that the said application is not
maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits the
application filed by the respondent clearly shows that he has spent
crores of rupees in installation, operation of water dispenser units.
So, the matter pertains to commercial transaction so civil court
has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the application filed by the
respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that
the present matter comes under the ambit of commercial dispute
so only commercial court has jurisdiction for adjudication.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the
trial court has erred in not considering the letter/notice dated
01.01.2021 sent by respondent for appointment of arbitrator.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that the said
letter clearly mentioned an amount of Rs. 27,32,00,000/- is in
dispute. So, it clearly shows that the matter is purely commercial
nature and it has to be adjudicated by commercial court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that trial
court wrongly held that neither any dispute between the parties
(3 of 4) [CR-25/2021]
regarding the agreement nor any dispute regarding any
transaction.
Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that trial
court has erred in holding that as per the clause-5 of the
agreement, dispute has to be resolved through arbitrator and not
by the commercial court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in LD-
VC-CW-88-2020 (Gaurang Manguesh Suctancar Vs. Sonia
Gaurang Suctancar) decided on 20.07.2020.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Writ
Petition No.3119/2018 (M/S. D.M. Corporation Pvt. Ltd Vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Ors.) decided on 05.04.2018.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent
has agreed to install water dispenser units on charity-basis. There
is no monetary dispute between the petitioners and respondent.
So, commercial court has no jurisdiction for adjudication of matter.
Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that trial court in
its order clearly stated that the dispute between the parties are for
installation of advertisement on water dispenser units. There is no
dispute regarding agreement and transaction, so trial court rightly
rejected the application filed by the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.7843/2019 (arising out of SLP(Civil) No.9391/2019),
(Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. K. S. Infraspace LLP
and Anr.) decided on 04.10.2019.
(4 of 4) [CR-25/2021]
Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in Civil
Revision Petition Nos.766 and 842 of 2017 (Ashok Kumar
Agarwal Vs. B. Balraj Goud and Ors.) decided on
30.01.2020.
I have considered arguments advanced by both the parties
and perused the impugned order.
The trial court in its order clearly stated that neither the
agreement nor the transaction between the parties is in dispute.
Learned trial court in its order clearly stated that the dispute
between the parties is regarding installation of advertisement on
the water dispenser units, the said dispute does not come in the
jurisdiction of commercial court. So, trial court rightly rejected the
application and held that civil court has jurisdiction. So, the
revision petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be rejected.
Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.
Since, the main petition has been dismissed today, the stay
application also stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Jatin /164
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
