M/S Madan Mohan Jain And Sons vs Jodhpur Dovelopement Authority ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 17065 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

M/S Madan Mohan Jain And Sons vs Jodhpur Dovelopement Authority ... on 15 December, 2025

Author: Anoop Kumar Dhand

Bench: Anoop Kumar Dhand

[2025:RJ-JD:53864]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18699/2023

M/s Madan Mohan Jain And Sons, Through Its Proprietor Shri Subhash Chand Jain S/o Late Shri Madan Mohan, Aged 71 Years, R/o No. 4, Central School Scheme, Air Force Area, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus Jodhpur Dovelopement Authority, Through Its Secretary, Opp. Railway Hospital, Jda Circle, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Respondent Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18696/2023 M/s Madan Mohan Jain And Sons, Through Its Proprietor Shri Subhash Chand Jain S/o Late Shri Madan Mohan, Aged 71 Years, R/o No-4, Central School Scheme, Air Force Area, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus Jodhpur Development Authority, Through Its Secretary, Opp. Railway Hospital, Jda Circle, Jodhpur (Raj.).

                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. C.S. Kotwani
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Vinay Kothari alongwith
                                  Mr. Ayush Goyal and
                                  Mr. Bhavyadeep Singh



                     JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

                                       Order

15/12/2025

1. By way of filing the instant petitions, a challenge has been

led to the impugned order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the

Commercial Court No.2, Jodhpur in Civil Misc. Case No.40/2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an award

was passed by the Arbitrator against the respondents and no

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 03:49:34 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53864] (2 of 3) [CW-18699/2023]

challenge under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 (for short, "the Act of 1996") was by either parties. Counsel

submits that when the petitioner filed an execution application for

the arbitral award, the respondent filed an application under

Section 47 of CPC and the same is not maintainable.

3. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Paramjeet Singh Patheja Vs. ICDS Ltd. reported in [2006

volume (13) SCC 322].

4. On the other side, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the

petitioners and submitted that despite of the fact that no

challenge to the award was filed under Section 34 of the Act of

1996, an objection under Section 47 CPC can be filed during the

course of execution proceedings.

5. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Electrosteel Steel Limited Vs. Ispat Carrier Private Limited

reported in [2025 SCC Online SC 829]. Counsel submits that in

view of the submissions made hereinabove, the petition submitted

by the petitioner is liable to be rejected.

6. Heard and considered the submission made at the bar and

perused the material available on record.

7. Various versions, cross-versions and counter arguments have

been raised by the respective counsels appearing on behalf of

both the sides with regard to the maintainability of the objection

filed under Section 47 CPC before the Commercial Court.

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 03:49:34 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:53864] (3 of 3) [CW-18699/2023]

8. The main matter is still lying pending for adjudication on its

merits. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Commercial

Court is expected to decide the issue about maintainability of the

objection under Section 47 CPC, in light of the judgments passed

by the Hon'ble Apex Court, without being influenced by the

observations made in the impugned order dated 20.11.2023.

9. Counsel for the parties shall be at liberty to raise their

objection/arguments in the light of judgments relied upon by them

before the Court below. The Commercial Court is expected to

decide these objections on a preliminary basis, without being

influenced by any of the observations made in the order

impugned.

10. It is expected from the Commercial Court to make all

possible endeavors to decide the preliminary issue of

maintainability within a period of six weeks from the date of

receiving certified copy of this order. The interim order passed by

this Court shall continue to remain in force, so far as return of the

demand draft deposited by the respondents is concerned.

11. With the aforesaid observations, both the instant petitions

are disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if

any, also stand disposed of.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J 16-17 Ishan/-

(Uploaded on 16/12/2025 at 03:49:34 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)