IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL REVISION No.6 of 2023 ======================================================

M/S Ankit Enterprises through its Proprietor namely Vinod Kumar Gododia aged about 59 years Gender-Male Son of Sampatrai Gododia, resident of Mohalla- 227G, Kabadevi Road 19, Near Narayan Temple Building, Zaver Bagh, Mumbai 400002.

... .. Petitioner/s Versus

1. M/S Shri Ram Sunil Kumar through its Proprietor Sri Sunil Kumar, at Mohalla- Sutapatti, P.S.- Town District- Muzaffarpur.

2. Sri Sunil Kumar, Son of Sri Ram Banka, Proprietor of M/S Sree Ram Sunil Kumar, resident of Sariya Ganj Gajadhar Chaudhary Lane, Dhobia Gali, P.S.- Town, District- Muzaffarpur.

... ... Respondent/s ======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bishwanath Chaudhary, Advoate Mr. Arif Daula Siddiqui, Advocate Mr. Noumaan Ahmad, Advocate Ms. Varsha Rani, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Nilanjan Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Ujjwal Raj, Advocate Mr. Sahil Kumar, Advocate Mr. Anirvan Choudhari, Advocate Mr. Jyoti Prakash, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND MALVIYA CAV ORDER

15 17-02-2026 This Civil Revision application has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “A&C Act”) read with Section 115 of the Code of the Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) against the order dated 22.07.2022 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-XIII, Muzaffarpur in Arbitration Misc. Case No. 814 of 2015, whereby and where under the learned trial Court rejected the prayer of petitioner challenging the maintainability of Arbitration Misc. Case no.

814 of 2015 on the ground of limitation as well as jurisdiction.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case is that during 2010-11 and thereafter there was business transaction between both petitioner and opposite parties and according to invoice/receipts admittedly there was clause of Arbitration in case of dispute between the parties and also entire invoice/receipts further disclose that entire transaction has taken place at Mumbai. Further, due to regarding nonpayment of dues ultimately Petitioner filed Arbitration case No- A/74 of 2013-14 before Hindustan Chamber of Commerce 442 Kalwa Devi Road, Mumabai 400002 in which notices were issued to the present opposite parties but in spite of valid service of notice and summon they chooses not to appear and ultimately after following the due process of law ultimately Award dated 11.06.2014 was granted in favour of petitioner directing return of Rs- 10,57,127/-.

4. Pursuant to grant of Award dated 11.06.2014 ultimately petitioner filed appropriate application in Bombay High Court under its original jurisdiction and after following due process of law Award dated 11.06.2014 was sent to the District Judge, Muzaffarpur for its execution and on being receipt ultimately Execution Case No-81 of 2017 was registered and same is pending for disposal in which present opposite parties have already appeared and contesting the same. Further, from raising certain grounds Arbitration Misc. Case No. 814 of 2015 has been filed challenging the Award dated 11.06.2014 in which pursuant to notice present petitioner has appeared and ultimately raising issue of maintainability on the ground of limitation as well as jurisdiction petition dated 22.03.2022 was filed by the petitioner. It is stated here that present opposite parties stating the factual details also and filed rejoinder on 22.04.2022 and prayer was made to dismiss the petition dated

22.03.2022.

5. Further, on 05.07.2022 a petition was filed by present opposite parties praying for condoning the delay in filing the Arbitration Misc. Case No. 814 of 2015 and further another petition dated 07.07.2022 was filed raising the genuineness of the invoices/