Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 32577 (RAJ)

VIRENDRA KUMAR JAIN ALIAS VIRENDRA JAIN S/O SHRI RIKHAB CHAND JAIN v. INTERNATIONAL CARGO CARRIER

CMA/3822/2023 · 2025-07-28

Anand Sharma, K R Shriram

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:28197-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 3822/2023 Virendra Kumar Jain Alias Virendra Jain S/o Shri Rikhab Chand Jain, aged about 49 years, Residing At North Town, Tower- 17 Flat 802 4-7 Stephenson Road, Jamalia Perambur, Chennai- 600012. ----Appellant Versus 1. International Cargo Carrier, A Partnership Firm Within The Meaning Of The Indian Partnership Act, 1932, Having Its Principal Place Of Business At International House, F-10, Transport Nagar, Jaipur-302003 And Also of B-59, Transport Nagar, Jaipur-302003. 2. Sri Ritesh Jain, S/o Late Raj Kumar Jain, Residing At 3/176, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur-302017 And Also At B-273, Mahaveer Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302018. 3. Sri Mahendra Kumar Jain, S/o Surajmal Jain, Residing At Gulabpura, District-Bhilwara, Pin Code-311021. 4. Sri Ved Bhusan Sethi, S/o Late Bal Mukund Sethi, Residing At P-15, Govind Marg, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur- 302004. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Hardev Puri Goswami on behalf of Mr. Hari Krishana Sharma For Respondent(s) : Dr. P.C. Jain with Ms. Vinny Jain HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. K.R. SHRIRAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 28/07/2025 1. Counsel for the appellant is requesting for an adjournment. We are not inclined to grant any adjournment because having considered impugned judgment and order dated 4th September, [2025:RJ-JP:28197-DB] (2 of 2) [CMA-3822/2023] 2023 passed by Commercial Court No.01, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, we find no infirmity. The claim is for settlement of accounts arising out of the partnership agreement between the parties. In 2010-11, appellants had called the respondents to furnish the accounts and to distribute the profits, whereas application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act of 1996’) has been filed in 2023. 2. Trial Court, therefore, found that the balance of convenience was in favour of respondents and rejected the interim application. 3. Therefore, appeal dismissed. 4. We are informed that application under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 has been filed by appellant before learned Single Judge of this Court and the matter is scheduled to be taken up on 31st July 2025. Court may dispose the matter on its own merits. (ANAND SHARMA),J (K.R. SHRIRAM),CJ N.Gandhi-Daksh/5