IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

REQUEST CASE No.28 of 2020

======================================================

M/s Bihar Home Developers and Builders, through its authorised and

registered Partner Sh. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar, S/o Late Sh. Sundeshwar Roy,

aged about 51 years, having registered office at B-107, Beur City Armaan,

Beur, Patna, also at B-405, Western Mall, R.P.S. Mode, 4^th Floor, Bailey Road,

Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Shri Narendra Prasad Gupta, S/o Late Ramdhani Shaw, Resident of Mohalla

Danapur, Cant Road, Gaadi Khana, P.O.- Thana Khagaul, Zila, Patna, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s

:

Mr. Anand Mishra, Advocate

Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate

For the Respondent/s

:

Mr. T.N. Maitin, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bijpuria, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

CAV JUDGMENT

Date : 07-07-2021

The sole issue that arises for consideration in the present

petition is whether the allegation of fraud alleged by the

respondent would render the arbitration clause in the agreement

dated 15^th November 2016 null and void?

2. The facts are short and simple.

3. Sometime in November 2016, the petitioner, a

registered private firm, entered into an agreement with the

respondent to develop and construct a property near Danapur,

Patna District. Allegedly, the petitioner paid huge sums of money

to the respondent at that time. In furtherance of the agreement,

the petitioner constructed a boundary wall for developing the plot

Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.28 of 2020 dt.07-07-2021

2/18

and applied for necessary permissions and sanctions under the

relevant statutes. Certain disputes having arisen, the parties

reduced the terms afresh into writing, which agreement dated

15.11.2016 was also registered with the appropriate authority.

This agreement contains an arbitration clause 17, which stands

invoked by the petitioner seeking appointment of a sole

arbitrator, more so in the absence of any response to the notice

dated 23^rd September 2019 requiring the respondent to do so.

Petitioner alleges the respondent to have concealed correct

information of ownership and pending litigation inter se co-

owners. Further, the respondent adopted an obstructionist

approach in executing the project and implementing the terms of

the agreement.

4. On the other hand, the respondent alleges fraud

perpetuated by the petitioner in the execution of the agreement.

The document was not allowed to be read over before signing.

Thus challenging its validity, the respondent initiated civil

proceedings to declare the agreement null and void. They also

initiated criminal proceedings on fraud falling within the purview

of Sections 468 and 417 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. In reliance of his submission, supporting the petitioner,

Sri Anand Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred

Patna High Court REQ. CASE No.28 of 2020 dt.07-07-2021

3/18

to and relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in

Chloro Controls India Private Limited, (2013) 1 SCC 641; A.

Ayyasamy Versus A Paramasivam and others, (2016) 10 SCC

386; Rashid Raza Versus Sadaf Akhtar, (2019) 8 SCC 710;

and N. N. Global Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Versus Indo Unique

Flame Ltd. and others, 2021 SCC Online SC 13.

6. Seeking rejection of the petition on the ground that the

agreement is null and void Sri T. N. Maitin, learned Senior

Advocate, appearing for the respondent seeks reliance upon the

decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in A. Ayyasamy Versus A

Paramasivam and others, (2016) 10 SCC 386 (para 23, 24 &

25); Rashid Raza Versus Sadaf Akhtar, (2019) 8 SCC 710

(para 4); Afcons Infrastructure Limited and another Versus

Cherian Varkey Construction Company Private Limited and

others, (2010) 8 SCC 24 (