Allowed

M/S Aero Club through General Manager Rajeev Khurana and 4 Others v. Sunil Kumar Baluni

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024SCCR/70/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision regarding an application invoking arbitration jurisdiction, the Allahabad High Court held that a prior application seeking leave to vacate was not the first statement on the substance, setting aside the lower court's order and directing a fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 19.02.2024 set aside; trial court directed to decide application 66Ga afresh affording all legal pleas.

M/S Aero Club through General Manager Rajeev Khurana and 4… — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:118753

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- S.C.C. REVISION No. - 70 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- M/S Aero Club Through General Manager Rajeev Khurana And 4 Others Opposite Party :- Sunil Kumar Baluni Counsel for Revisionist :- Akanksha Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Tarun Agrawal

¶5

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶7

The present revision has been preferred against order dated 19.02.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Gautam Buddh Nagar by which he has rejected the application 66Ga of the revisionists filed under Order 7 Rule 10A of CPC on the ground that the said application was not filed at the time of submission of first statement on the substance of the dispute.

¶8

The record reveals that the revisionists, who are the defendants in the suit instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for eviction of the revisionists, submitted an application 27Ga before the trial court seeking leave of the trial court to vacate the suit property. However, the revisionists also filed written statement taking specific plea in paragraph No.4 that the rent agreement contains an arbitration clause, therefore, the dispute is to be referred to the Arbitrator under the arbitration agreement.

¶9

The revisionists thereafter filed an application 66Ga under Order 7 Rule 10A stating therein that the dispute is covered under arbitration clause, therefore, the small causes court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter.

¶10

The said application was rejected vide order dated 19.02.2024 on the ground that since the revisionists did not file application 66Ga at the time of filing the application 27Ga which is the first statement of the revisionists on the substance of the dispute, therefore, the revisionists are not entitled to benefit of Section 8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

¶11

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the revisionists has contended that the application 27Ga cannot be treated to be the first statement on the substance of the dispute

¶12

inasmuch as it was an application seeking leave of the court to vacate the premises, therefore, the trial court has erred in law in treating the said application to be the first statement on the substance of the dispute.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent though argued vehementally and placed several orders passed by the trial court recording that the revisionists have not pressed question of jurisdiction but fairly admits that the reason assigned by the trial court is not sound and is not based upon the settled principle of law.

¶14

In view of the aforesaid submission advanced by learned counsel for the respondent, this court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the revisionists. Consequently, this Court set aside the order dated 19.02.2024.

¶15

The trial court is directed to decide the application 66Ga afresh and parties are at liberty to take all pleas as available to them under law.

¶16

The trial court shall make endeavour to decide the said application expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. In case, if any adjournment is inevitable, the trial court may grant the same by imposing heavy cost which may not be less than Rs.5,000/-.

¶17

With the aforesaid observations, the revision is allowed .

¶18

Order Date :- 25.7.2024

¶19

R.S. Tiwari

¶20

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Aero Club through General Manager Rajeev Khurana and 4 Others v. Sunil Kumar Baluni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Aero Club through General Manager Rajeev Khurana and 4 Others v. Sunil Kumar Baluni

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pankaj Kumar Singh and 6 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others

Shri Nirmal Panchayati Akhara Pili Kothi vs Munnu Lal Vaishya and 3 Others

Ram Harakh vs State of Up and 4 Others

Dr. Ajay Singh vs State of Up and 2 Others

Sajid vs State of Up and 3 Others

Surendra Pal Singh vs State of U.P. and Another