Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
M/S Bajrang Trademart vs Samsung India Electronics Private ... on 11 September, 2019
Author: G R Moolchandani
Bench: G R Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4078/2019
M/s Bajrang Trademart, Through Its Authorized Representative
Satyanarayan Dangayach S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Dangayach ,
Office At F-94, Road, No. 6, Vishwakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur
----Appellant
Versus
Samsung India Electronics Private Limited, Through Its Director,
Branch Office At Second Floor, S-4, Sun N Moon Chambers,
Linking Road, Gopalbari, Near Ajmer Flyover, Jaipur 302001
Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Bhrigu Sharma with Mr. Akarsh Mathur on behalf of Dr. Ram Kishan Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Mishra HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI Order 11/09/2019 Learned counsel for the appellant, citing the following authorities : (i) Dwarika Projects Ltd. v. Superintending Engineer, Karnal, PWD (B&R), Haryana 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8454, (ii) Hinduja Lyland Finance Ltd. v. Debdas Routh 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 16379, (iii) Union of India v. Hardy Exploration and Forduction (India) INC 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1640, and rendering reference to the statutory provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act has contended that the order passed by the trial court is erroneous and in view of the law and law laid down through the citations referred, trial court was obliged to decide the application preferred under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act since powers to decide the application were vest by virtue of duality of jurisdiction (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 08:04:06 PM) (2 of 2) [CMA-4078/2019] with the trial court, so the impugned order be quashed and the appeal be allowed and operation of the order be stayed in the meanwhile.
On the contrary learned counsel representing respondent, while relying upon the following authority Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited v. Datawind Innovations Private Limited & Ors. (2017) 7 Supreme Court Cases 678, and M/s. Swastik Gases P. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corp. Ltd. (2013) 9 SCC 32, has contended that there is no infirmity in the order impugned since the arbitration agreement stipulates jurisdiction of the arbitration proceedings, so its seat is pre-determined, hence there is no reason to interfere with the order and the arguments advanced by the appellant have got no force in view of the law laid down in Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited v. Datawind Innovations Private Limited & Ors. (supra).
Heard elaborate arguments of both the sides and perused the order impugned and material available on the record and gone through the authorities relied upon.
Respondent is present as a caveator and copy of the appeal has already been supplied, so there is no need to issue notice.
Call for the record. In the meanwhile, operation and execution of order impugned dated 17.08.2019 passed by the court below, shall remain stayed till further orders.
(G R MOOLCHANDANI),J db/-146 (Downloaded on 06/06/2021 at 08:04:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)