PRASHANT COMMERCIAL Vs. RAJRATAN R MOHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition challenges the order dated 4th december, 1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha in Special civil Suit No. 236/1998. It appears that earlier Civil Revision Application No. 402/2000, was filed before this Court, but in view of the subsequent amendment to provisions of section 115 of Civil Procedure Code by Act No. 46 of 1999, the said revision was withdrawn on 15-3-2004, and thereafter the present Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed. In this view of the matter the parties requested the Court to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, parties have been heard finally, and opportunity was also given to them to file xerox copies of the relevant case laws.

(2.) The present petitioners are original plaintiffs, while the respondent sole is the original defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff was for recovery of amount of Rs. 23 lakhs and the contention of the present petitioner was that the said amount was handed over to the present respondent for purchase of shares of state Bank of India, TISCO etc. The petitioners contends that they on various occasions demanded the delivery of shares, but the respondent did not deliver the same and kept on assuring about its delivery. Ultimately the suit as mentioned above came to be filed for refund of Rs. 23 lakhs, paid by the petitioners to the respondent for purchase of shares with 18% interest per annum. The present respondent appeared in the said Special Civil Suit No. 236/1998, before the Joint civil Judge, Senior Division, Wardha and raised preliminary objection contending inter alia that the Civil Court could not take cognizance of the matter in view of the bye-law No. 248 (a) to (d) and Rule 2 (c) of the Rules/bye-laws and regulation of Stock Exchange of Bombay framed in 1997. They contended that the dispute between the petitioners and the respondent is covered therein and is to be adjudicated only by Arbitrator. It appears that after filing this preliminary objection, the respondent also moved the Arbitrator and Arbitrator issued summons to the present petitioners. The petitioners made grievance about the arbitration before the Civil Court and sought its stay and on 1-7-1999, by ex-parte order said proceedings were stayed. The said stay has been confirmed by the trial Court thereafter.

(3.) The trial Court heard the parties in this background and found that though the petitioners are non-members, the dispute between them is to be referred to Arbitration in view of the provisions of Bye-law No. 248 and therefore, held that the Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to try such dispute, it therefore, returned the plaint to the petitioners. It also vacated the stay granted to the proceedings before the Arbitrator.