Rajasthali Law Institute vs Vivekananda Global University
2021 Latest Caselaw 6418 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

         D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1861/2021

1.     Rajasthali Law Institute, Proprietor Sh. M.K. Singh, B-
       100, University Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-302015.
2.     Sh. M.K. Singh S/o Sh. Lal Singh, Aged About 46 Years,
       Proprietor Rajasthali Law Institute, B-100, University
       Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur- 302015.
3.     Rajasthali Vidhi Sansthan (Registered Society), B-100,
       University Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-302015, Through Its
       Chairman.
4.     Sh. Randhir Singh S/o Sh. Lal Singh, Aged About 37
       Years, B-100, University Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur-
       302015.
                                                                       ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.     Vivekananda Global University, Sector 36, NRI Road,
       Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 303012 (India), Through
       Registrar.
2.     Shri Omkar Bagaria, CEO Vivekananda Global University,
       Sector 36, NRI Road, Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan,
       303012 (India)
3.     Bagaria      Educational        Trust,      Sector        36,     NRI   Road,
       Jagatpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 303012 (India), Through Its
       Chairman/Trustee/Managing Trustee.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. K. Sunil, Advocate with Mr. Sudhir Kumar Tiwari, Advocate and Mr. Arjita Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Daga, Advocate for caveator

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

Judgment / Order

12/11/2021

(2 of 2) [CMA-1861/2021]

The appeal arises out of order dated 29.10.2021 by which

the Commercial Court has rejected the interim Stay Application

regarding the undertaking given by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the appellants argues that even though

an undertaking was given, which was limited to some of the

aspect of the case, the order-sheet gives an impression that

appellant's prayer is rejected. He would submit that the scope and

ambit of prayer made before the Commercial Court is much wider

than what has been covered under the impugned order, therefore,

the Court below was obliged to decide the application.

Learned counsel for caveator would submit that the

Commercial Court has heard the arguments of the parties on the

main petition and it is fixed for orders on 15.11.2021.

Admitted fact that the case is listed for orders on

15.11.2021, shows that the relief sought by the appellants has not

been finally adjudicated. However, till that time, the undertaking

given by the other parties has to continue in terms of what has

been recorded in order dated 29.10.2021. The Commercial Court

would be oblige to decide the dispute which has been raised in

application filed before it. Since, the order is going to be passed

by the Commercial Court on 15.11.2021, we would not enter in

merits of the case. It is needless to say that if the appellants are

aggrieved by the order that may finally be passed, they may avail

appropriate remedy under the law. With this observations, this

appeal is disposed of.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Mohita /76

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)