Dismissed¶20

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Thr. Its Authorized Officer Mr. Sarbasuchi Das v. Ajay Shantilal Raka and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jul 2025WP/11139/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC, Gauri Godse J, 20-08-2025, WP 11139/2025 — Kotak Mahindra Bank v. Ajay Shantilal Raka & Ors: Article 227 writ against district court's conditional stay (bank guarantee) of money-decree recovery pending regular civil appeal dismissed; Section 8 Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 jurisdiction plea left to appellate court.

What did the court decide?

Since, in the event the petitioner succeeds in the appeal on the ground of jurisdiction, the suit is likely to be dismissed, the court saw no reason to interfere with the impugned order granting conditional stay; the petitioner's claim to an unconditional stay was thus not accepted. ¶19

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Thr. Its Authorized Officer Mr… — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should interfere, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with the district court's order granting conditional stay (recovery of principal amount stayed on furnishing bank guarantee) passed in the petitioner's pending regular civil appeal against the money decree. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

With the appeal ripe for hearing, the court saw no reason to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

¶19

Key takeaways

The issue of jurisdiction (arbitration clause / Section 8 Arbitration Act) shall be decided by the appeal court in the substantive appeal, which is still pending.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Bombay (Gauri Godse, J.) — Writ Petition No. 11139 of 2025, decided 20 August 2025: Dismissed. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., aggrieved by the district court's order granting a conditional stay in its pending regular civil appeal against a money decree in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff (recovery of the principal amount stayed on furnishing a bank guarantee), sought an unconditional stay contending that, in view of the arbitration clause in the underlying agreement, the civil court ought to have referred the dispute under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and therefore had no jurisdiction to pass the decree, relying on the Delhi High Court decision in Madhu Sudan Sharma and Ors v. Omaxe Ltd (2023 SCC Online Del 7136). The Court held that if the petitioner succeeded in the appeal on the ground of jurisdiction the suit was likely to be dismissed, and therefore saw no reason to interfere with the conditional stay; the issue of jurisdiction was left to be decided by the appeal court in the substantive appeal, still pending. With the appeal ripe for hearing, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and dismissed the writ petition.

¶1

Digitally signed VARSHA by VARSHA VIJAY VIJAY RAJGURUDate: RAJGURU 2025.08.2115:34:25 +0530

¶2

23-wp-11139-2025.doc

¶3

varsha

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 11139 OF 2025

¶6

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited through its … Petitioner Authorized Officer Mr. Sarbasuchi Das

¶7

vs.

¶8

Ajay Shantilal Raka and Ors … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Ansh Karnawat a/w. Mr. Ajay Deshmane i/b. V. Deshpande and Co., for Petitioner

¶10

Ms. Sarita Sonawane h/f. Ms. Aarti P. Bhide for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶11

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶12

DATED : 20^th AUGUST 2025

¶13

ORDER:

¶14

This writ petition is filed to challenge the order granting a conditional stay in favour of the petitioner. There is a money decree in favour of respondent no.1-plaintiff. The petitioner has filed a regular civil appeal in the district court to challenge the money decree. In that appeal, the application for stay is decided by the impugned order. The district court has granted a stay to the recovery of the principal amount on furnishing bank guarantee.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement based on which the suit was

¶16

Page no. 1 of 2

¶17

23-wp-11139-2025.doc

¶18

filed, the civil court ought to have made a reference in view of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Arbitration Act’). He therefore submits that the civil court had no jurisdiction to pass a decree. Hence, in the appeal filed to challenge the decree without jurisdiction, the petitioner would be entitled to an unconditional stay. To support his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court, in the case of Madhu Sudan Sharma and Ors Vs. Omaxe Ltd¹ .

¶19

In the event, the petitioner succeeds in the appeal on the ground of jurisdiction, the suit is likely to be dismissed. Hence, on that ground, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order granting conditional stay. The issue of jurisdiction shall be decided by the appeal court in the substantive appeal, which is still pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal is now riped for hearing. Hence, in such circumstances, I see no reason to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the impugned order.

¶20

The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.

¶21

(GAURI GODSE, J.)

¶22

1 2023 SCC Online Del 7136

¶23

Page no. 2 of 2

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Thr. Its Authorized Officer Mr. Sarbasuchi Das v. Ajay Shantilal Raka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Thr. Its Authorized Officer Mr. Sarbasuchi Das v. Ajay Shantilal Raka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rajendra Parshuram Patwardhan vs M/S. Buldhana Urban Co. Op Credit Soc. Ltd.

Link Palace Chs Limited vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Rajendra Bhila Metkar and Others vs Mrs. Shantabai Daulat Khirkade and Others

Sandeep Deepchand Shah and Anr. vs Pradeep Deepchand Shah and Ors.

Sandeep Deepchand Shah and Anr. vs Pradeep Deepchand Shah and Ors.

Sachin @ Raghu Baburao Kolekar vs State of Maharashtra