Saturday, 09, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

M.L Hospitality (Registered ... vs R.S Sharma (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 6663 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6663 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 18 November, 2021

Rajasthan High Court
M.L Hospitality (Registered ... vs R.S Sharma (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd on 18 November, 2021
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4814/2021

M.l Hospitality (Registered Partnership Firm), Registered Address
A-11, Basant Bahar, Gopalpura Mode, Jaipur 302015, Through
Its Partner Mr. Mukesh Kumar Khandelwal.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
R.s Sharma (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd, Having Its Registered Office At
Sahakar Marg, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302015, Rajasthan
And At Shop No.-5, Dda Complex, Gulmohar Park, Delhi, 110049
In.
                                                                   ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Saurabh Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Vikram Jonwal, Adv. alongwith
                                Mr. L.L. Gupta, Adv.



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

                                     Order

18/11/2021

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging

the order dated 24.03.2021.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the

order dated 14.03.2021 passed by the Commercial Court, Jaipur

whereby the application submitted by the petitioner for

appointment of the Court Commissioner was rejected.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed an

application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 (hereinafter to be referred as Act of 1996), upon which the

commercial Court vide order dated 11.08.2020 directed to

maintain status quo and during pendency of the said application,

(2 of 3) [CW-4814/2021]

the petitioner filed an application for appointment of the Court

Commissioner and the said application was dismissed by the

Commercial Court vide order dated 24.03.2021, hence this writ

petition has been filed by the petitioner.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that for just decision of

the application filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , the Court Commissioner is

required to be appointed. Counsel further submitted that the

Commercial Court has committed serious illegality in not

appointing the Court Commissioner as prayed by the petitioner.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted

that the Commercial Court has not committed any illegality in

dismissing the application submitted by the petitioner as the court

commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting the evidence.

Counsel further submits that after the order dated 24.03.2021

passed by the learned commercial court, the petitioner filed an

application under Section 11(6) of the Act which was allowed by

this court vide order dated 26.08.2021 and Hon'ble Mr. Justice

K.C. Sharma (Retd.) was appointed as Arbitrator. Counsel further

submits that before the learned Arbitrator, the petitioner again

filed an application for appointment of Court Commissioner which

was allowed by the learned Arbitrator appointing Sh. Abhi Goyal as

Commissioner who has also submitted its report on 11.10.2021

and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

In support of his contentions, counsel for the respondents

relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of

Prem Ratan Vs. Rent Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr. reported in

2012(3) CDR 1589 (Raj.).

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3 of 3) [CW-4814/2021]

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the commercial Court has not

committed any illegality in dismissing the application submitted by

the petitioner for appointment of Court Commissioner as the

commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting evidence and in

subsequent developments, the arbitrator has already been

appointed in this matter on the application submitted by the

petitioner; secondly, Arbitrator has already appointed the Court

Commissioner who has submitted his report to the Arbitrator in

this matter, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of

the present and in view of subsequent development, I am not

inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this court under Article 227

of the Constitution of India.

Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

Jyoti/48

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter