Disposed

Arun Trading Company v. Dec Agrotech Private Limited

Rajasthan HC7 Feb 2025CW/2611/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an interim order where the trial court had not decided an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC but directed submission of a compliance report under Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court held the petition premature regarding the mandatory nature of the provision and directed the trial court to decide the ancillary applicat

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; direction to trial court to decide Order 7 Rule 11 application within one month; suit proceedings stayed pending.

Arun Trading Company Vs Dec Agrotech… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:5515]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2611/2020

¶4

Arun Trading Company, Situated At 18/1, Maharshi Debendra Road Kolkata- 700007 Through Proprietor Shri Raj Kumar Kheria.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Dec Agrotech Private Limited, Office At 148, Utkalmoni Gopabandhu Sarani (Cotton Street), Fourth Floor, Kolkata, 700007 Through Director Dinesh Kumar Goyal.

¶8

Piyush Kheria S/o Shri Raj Kumar Kheria, Through Arun Trading Company, 18/1, Maharshi Debendra Road, Kolkata- 700007

¶9

Rahul Kheria S/o Shri Raj Kumar Kheria, Through Arun Trading Company, 18/1, Maharshi Debendra Road, Kolkata- 700007

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Himanshu Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Prakash Chandra Jain
	Mr. Shahnawaz Khan
	Ms. Kriti Jain

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶13

Order

¶14

07/02/2025

¶15

This civil writ petition has been filed by the petitionerdefendant No.1 (for short ‘the defendant’) against the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the Judge, Commercial Court No.4, Jaipur (for short ‘the trial Court’) in case No. 99/2018 whereby the trial Court had not decided the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and directed the respondent No.1-plaintiff (for short ‘the plaintiff’) to first submit the compliance report with

[2025:RJ-JP:5515]

[CW-2611/2020]

(2 of 3)

regard to Section 12-A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (for short ‘the Act of 2015’).

¶20

Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,24,91,798/- in which the defendant filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC read with Section 12-A of the Act of 2015 but the trial Court vide order dated 16.12.2019 had not decided the said application filed by the defendant.

¶21

Learned counsel further submits that instead of deciding the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, trial Court admitted the fact that compliance of Section 12-A of the Act of 2015 is mandatory and gave direction to the plaintiff for submitting compliance report with regard to Section 12-A of the Act of 2015.

¶22

Learned counsel further submits that on account of in compliance of mandatory provision of Section 12-A of the Act of 2015, the trial Court should have dismissed the plaint filed by the plaintiff. So, the order dated 16.12.2019 passed by the trial Court be set aside.

¶23

Learned counsel for the plaintiff has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the defendant and submitted that trial Court had not decided the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC and the same is still pending. So, the present petition filed by the defendant is premature. Learned counsel also submits that Section 12-A of the Act of 2015 was declared mandatory from 20.08.2022, whereas the suit was filed in the year 2018. So, the present writ petition filed by the defendant be dismissed.

[2025:RJ-JP:5515]

[CW-2611/2020]

(3 of 3)

I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.

¶28

It is an admitted position that the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC is still pending. Compliance of Section 12-A of the Act of 2015 is mandatory or not is yet to be decided by the trial Court while adjudicating the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. In my considered opinion, petition filed by the defendant deserves to be disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC preferably as early as possible within a month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶29

Accordingly, without interfering with the impugned order, the petition filed by the defendant is disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to decide the application filed by the defendant under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC preferably within a month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till then, further proceedings regarding the suit pending before the commercial Court concerned shall remain stayed.

¶30

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

¶31

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

¶32

Ritu/113

Arun Trading Company v. Dec Agrotech Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Trading Company v. Dec Agrotech Private Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahmudeen Khan Son of Shri Munsarf Khan Vs Saboodeen Son of Phauji

Smt. Rajpati @ Rajrani Wife of Late Shri Veer Singh Vs Satish Kumar Yadav Son of Late Shri Hoshiyar Singh

Anil Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Ramnarayan Sharma, Vs Smt. Shubhra Singh

Mohammed Aslam Dayer S/O Chhotu Mohammed Rangrej Vs Smt. Shubhra Singh

Najir S/O Shri Jamil Vs State of Rajasthan

Maganbai Wife of Vishram Vs Chanchalrani Daughter of Tilak Wife of Bhihari Lal