Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.
Jaipur Municipal Corporation (heritage) - Appellant
Versus
Ekajal Private Limited, Bachhawat - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 25 of 2021
Decided on : 08-04-2021
Commercial Court Act - Jurisdiction - The court held that the dispute regarding installation of advertisement on water dispenser units did not fall within the jurisdiction of the commercial court, and therefore rejected the application filed under the Commercial Court Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order of the trial court which dismissed their application under the Commercial Court Act, claiming that the dispute regarding installation of advertisement on water dispenser units fell within the jurisdiction of the commercial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dispute did not pertain to the agreement or transaction between the parties, but rather to the installation of advertisement on the water dispenser units, and therefore held that the civil court had jurisdiction. The revision petition was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the commercial court under the Commercial Court Act, 2015.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the finding that the dispute did not relate to the agreement or transaction between the parties, but rather to the installation of advertisement on the water dispenser units, which fell outside the jurisdiction of the commercial court.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the stay application was also dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. - 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.
2. 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 Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur which was transferred for adjudication to the court of learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan-II.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that trial court wrongly held that neither any dispute between the parties regarding the agreement nor any dispute regarding any transaction.
6. 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.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay at Goa in LDVC-CW-88-2020 (Gaurang Manguesh Suctancar Vs. Sonia Gaurang Suctancar) decided on 20.07.2020.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble H
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
