M/S JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.), (NOW KNOWN AS KALPATARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LTD.) vs SH. SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA

Judgment text excerpt

$~47 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 28th March, 2025 + CM(M) 582/2025, CM APPL. 18394/2025 & CM APPL. 18395/2025 M/S JMC PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.), (NOW KNOWN AS KALPATARU PROJECTS INTERNATIONAL LTD.) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vineet Hans, Mr. Amit Sagar, Mr. Amit Kumar and Ms. Hmanshi Sharma, Advocates versus SH. SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA .....Respondent Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) CM APPL. 18395/2025 (exemption) Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. CM(M) 582/2025 & CM APPL. 18394/2025 1. Petitioner is defending a suit which is commercial in nature and has taken exception to order dated 02.09.2024 whereby his application moved under Order VII Rule 11 r/w Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. 2. Rejection of the suit was sought on twin grounds. 3. Firstly, the Court in Delhi lacked jurisdiction and secondly, the dispute should have been referred to Arbitrator in terms of Section 8 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as „said Act‟). 4. Fact remains that the learned counsel for petitioner/defendant has restricted the present petition, merely, with respect to the second aspect i.e. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 582/2025 1 By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:29.03.2025 13:19:53 reference of dispute under Section 8 of said Act. 5. Though, no separate application, as such, under Section 8 of said Act was moved before the learned Trial Court, a specific objection in this regard has been taken in written statement filed by the defendant. 6. To understand the aforesaid issue, it is appropriate to make reference to Clause 43 of the Work Order in question. It reads as under: - “Resolution of Dispute: Any dispute or difference arising out of this Work Order sha