Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
S. Nand Kumar And Company Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Golden Plates Banquets Pvt. Ltd on 31 July, 2025
Author: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
Bench: Narendra Singh Dhaddha
[2025:RJ-JP:27801]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 27/2025
Shubham Resort Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At
A/250, Defence Colony, New Delhi 110014, E-182, Ram Path,
Shyam Nagar, Jaipur, National Highway-11, Jaipur Delhi Highway,
Near Tala Mod, Achrol, Jaipur 303002 Through Its Director Shri
Bhuvnesh Kumar Pareek
----Petitioner-Defendant No. 2
Versus
1. M/s Golden Plates Banquet Private Limited, Having Its
Registered Office At Dsm 138, First Floor Dlf Tower,
Shivaji Marg, New Delhi 110015 Through Its Authorized
Representative Ms. Mohini Chaudhary
----Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff
2. S. Nand Kumar And Company Pvt. Ltd., Having Its
Registered Office At L-3, Krishna Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur
302001 (Raj.) Through Its Director
—-Proforma Respondents/Defendant No. 1
Connected With
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 32/2025
S. Nand Kumar And Company Pvt. Ltd., Having Registered
Address L-3, Krishna Marg, C Scheme, Jaipur 302001 Email
Bgkotahwala @gamil.com Through Director.
—-Petitioner-Defendant No. 1
Versus
1. M/s Golden Plates Banquets Pvt. Ltd., Having Registered
Office-Dasm 138, First Floor Dlf Tower, Shivaji Marg, New
Delhi 110015 Through Authorised Representative-Sushri
Mohini Choudhary.
—-Respondent No. 1-Plaintiff
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27801] (2 of 6) [CR-27/2025]
2. Shubham Resort Pvt. Ltd., Having Registered Address-A-
250, Defense Colony, New Delhi 110014, E-182, Ram
Path Shyam Nagar Jaipur And National Highway-11,
Jaipur Delhi Highway, Tala Mod Ke Paas, Acharol 303002,
Jaipur, Email [email protected] Through
Director Bhuwnesh Kumar Pareek.
—-Respondent-Defendant No. 2
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. S. Hora with
Mr. Kartik Agarwal in C.R. No.
27/2025
Mr. Girraj Bardhar, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Kapil Bardhar &
Mr. Ayush Sharma, &
Ms. Anshulika Pareek &
Mr. Suresh Bairwa in Cr. No. 32/2025
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sukriti Kasliwal
Mr. Ishan Verma
Ms. Tisha Sharma
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Judgment
DATE OF JUDGMENT 31/07/2025
These civil revision petitions have been filed by the
defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (for short ‘the defendants’) under Section
115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the order dated
15.01.2025 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge No.
3, Jaipur District, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’), by which the
trial Court dismissed the application filed by the defendants under
Learned counsel for the defendants submits that respondent
No. 1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) filed a civil suit for
declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants in
which defendants filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27801] (3 of 6) [CR-27/2025]
but the trial Court vide order dated 15.01.2025 wrongly dismissed
the application filed by the defendants.
Learned counsel for the defendants also submits that civil
Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit because by way of suit,
plaintiff wanted to execute the business conducting agreement
dated 25.01.2023, and only commercial Court had jurisdiction to
try the suit. As per the plaintiff’s contention, disputed property
was transferred to S. Nand Kumar and Company Pvt. Ltd., and as
per the agreement dated 25.01.2023 arbitration proceedings are
maintainable as such the dispute between the plaintiff and
defendant No. 1 has already been referred to the Arbitrator. The
agreement between Shubham Resort Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Golden
Plates Banquets Private Ltd. was terminated by legal notice dated
17.04.2024. Thereafter, the plaintiff had filed an application under
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the
Commercial Court No. 1, Jaipur Metro, Jaipur, and the Commercial
Court vide order dated 02.09.2024 dismissed the application
observing that after termination of the said agreement, the
plaintiff had no right over the said property. The plaintiff could
only seek compensation in terms of Section 64 of the Easement
Act. The plaintiff challenged the said order dated 02.09.2024
before this Court by filing DBCMA No. 4192/2024 and the Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.10.2024 dismissed the
appeal and affirmed the order passed by the commercial Court.
Learned counsel for the defendants further submits that as
per the conditions of the agreement, civil court had no jurisdiction
because arbitration proceedings are going on. In the plaint,
contention of the plaintiff that arbitration proceedings may take
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27801] (4 of 6) [CR-27/2025]
time is not the ground to file the suit. Whether agreement was
wrongly terminated or not, is to be decided by the Arbitrator and
not by the civil Court. So, order dated 15.01.2025 passed by the
trial Court be set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff be
dismissed on the ground of no cause of action and for want of
jurisdiction.
Learned counsel for the defendants has placed reliance upon
the following judgments:-
1. T. Arvindandam V. T.V. Satypal & Anr. reported in (1977)
4 SCC 467.
2. K. Akbar Ali V.K. Umar Khan & Ors. reported in (2021) 14
SCC 51.
3. Key Pee Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. V. Shahjahan Begum reported
in MANU/RH/0432/2015.
4. Madan Lal Vaid V. Nand Kumar Walia & Ors reported in
MANU/DE/1282/2001.
5. Holy Health & Education Society V. Delhi Development
Authority reported in MANU/DE/0413/1999.
6. Kvaerner Cementation India Ltd. V. Bajranglal Agarwal &
Anr. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 2014.
7. Sardar Harnam Puri V. Union of India reported in 2005
SCC Online Raj. 84.
8. Naolin Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. Kalpana Industries
reported in 2024 SCC Online TS 1618.
9. Disrict Cricket Association V. Rajasthan Cricket
Association & Ors. in S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 70/2020
decided on 14.09.2020.
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27801] (5 of 6) [CR-27/2025]
Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the defendants and submits that
plaintiff and S. Nand Kumar and Company Pvt. Ltd. had no privity
of contract. No arbitration agreement was executed between
them. Defendants wrongly terminated the agreement and
transferred the property to S. Nand Kumar and Company Pvt. Ltd.
So, the plaintiff rightly filed the suit before the Civil Court. The
trial Court while dismissing the application came to the conclusion
that objection with regard to jurisdiction as well as cause of action
would be decided after the evidence of the parties. So, the petition
filed by the defendants being devoid of merit, is liable to be
dismissed.
I have considered the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the defendants as well as learned counsel for the
plaintiff.
It is an admitted position that an agreement between the
plaintiff and the Shubham Resort Pvt. Ltd. was executed on
25.01.2023. The said agreement was terminated by legal notice
dated 17.04.2024, against which the plaintiff filed an application
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the
Commercial Court. The Commercial Court vide order dated
02.09.2024 dismissed the application. The plaintiff challenged the
said order before this Court by filing the DBCMA No. 4192/2024,
The Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.10.2024
dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order passed by the
commercial Court. By way of suit, the plaintiff sought the relief
with regard to agreement dated 25.01.2023 which was executed
between plaintiff and Shubham Resort Pvt. Ltd. In my considered
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:27801] (6 of 6) [CR-27/2025]
opinion, the trial Court had committed an error in entertaining the
present suit because as per the agreement, only arbitration
proceedings are maintainable, therefore, the civil Court had no
jurisdiction to try the suit. So, the petition filed by the defendants
deserve to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petitions filed by the defendants are allowed
and the suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed for want of cause of
action and jurisdiction.
Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J
Tahir/92-93
(Downloaded on 15/08/2025 at 11:17:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)