[2026:RJ-JP:4378] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 159/2025 1. Mr. Man Singh Rajawat S/o Shri Nathu Singh Rajawat, Age 42 Years, R/o 12, Khatiyo Ka Mohalla, Gram Hatoj, Near Tejaji Temple, Kalwar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302012. 2. Mr. Vipul Sharma S/o Shri Sameer Sharma, Age 31 Years, Plot No. A-45, Power House Road, Sain Colony, In Front of Railway Station, Jaipur Metropolitan, Rajasthan-302006. ----Applicants Versus 1. Advent Foods Limited through its Authorized Director Mr. Mohit Singh S/o Bharat D. Singh, Registered Office 205- 207, Second Floor, Vikas Complex, Vikas Marg, Veer Savarkar Block, Sahakapur East, Delhi, India-110093. 2. Cosmopolitan Education Society, Rajasthan Jaipur through its Secretary Mrs. Payal Singh W/o Nitin Singh, Registered Office: D-27, Todarmal Marg, Banipark, Jaipur-302016. ----None-Applicants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yash Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda Mr. Abhishek Singh Devanda Mr. Ajay Poonia HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 30/01/2026 In the present case, one Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate appeared on behalf of the applicants on 23.01.2026 and sought an adjournment. Although, learned counsel for the respondents had orally raised an objection but this Court had adjourned the matter and directed to list the case for today i.e. 30.01.2026. [2026:RJ-JP:4378] (2 of 5) [ARBAP-159/2025] The Bench Reader has informed that after the file was sent from the Court, the same went missing and did not reach to the concerned clerk. However, as there is a scanned online copy available, scan copy of the missing file was printed from the online scanning record and search slip was also issued. The Registrar (Judicial) has therefore, placed the scanned copy of the arbitration application before this Court. Today interestingly, Mr. Sandeep Jain, Advocate has conspicuously absent and another counsel Mr. Yash Sharma appears and seeks adjournment stating that he has filed power today with No Objection Certificate (NOC). Learned counsel for the respondents has strongly objected to the modus adopted by the concerned lawyers. He pointed out that Mr. Yash Sharma is appearing for the applicants in the case filed before the Commercial Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (for short ‘the Act’) and thereafter, he has also appeared for the same applicants before this Court in D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.5176/2025 on 15.01.2026 and on that date, the appeal was withdrawn. Learned counsel further submits that the counsel for the applicants has full knowledge of all the proceedings and the adjournment sought is only to veil time and to continue, in one manner or the other, delaying the proceedings against the respondents. Learned counsel Mr. Yash Sharma has however submitted that he has only been engaged in the present case today. Learned counsel for the respondents has taken this Court to the agreement entered into between the parties wherein, the [2026:RJ-JP:4378] (3 of 5) [ARBAP-159/2025] alleged arbitration clause is stated to be mentioned and submits that the arbitration clause is only with respect to agriculture land whereas, the land was also relating to institutional land thus, he submits that the arbitration clause would not apply as advance amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) and cheques amounting to Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores) had been given for purchase of the entire land i.e. institutional as well as agricultural. He has further pointed out that after the agreement was entered into between the parties, the purchaser namely the present applicants sent notice stating that the land for which the agreement had been entered into was disputed and several allegations relating to the land having encumbrances were levelled in the notice. Further, it was informed to the respondents that the cheques ought not to be encashed. In reply to the notice, the respondents returned all the four cheques and also returned the entire amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) in two installments, Rs.60,00,000/- were deposited through Real Time Gross Settlement (RTGS), however, Rs.40,00,000/- were not accepted by the applicants, thereafter the same were also sent through RTGS in the account. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicants are trying to create encumbrance and want to make the property as disputed property by filing cases in the Court. The present application for appointing Arbitrator is one of them. Learned counsel further submits that the arbitration clause would have no application to the facts as pointed out and the respondents cannot be forced to create the property as disputed property and prays for rejecting the application. [2026:RJ-JP:4378] (4 of 5) [ARBAP-159/2025] I have considered the submissions. I find that notice was sent to the respondents on 12.08.2025 wherein, the relief sought was to execute sell deed in terms of the agreement and damages for breach of contract. Ordinarily, if there is an arbitration clause existing between the parties and there is a dispute, this Court would appoint an Arbitrator, however, the facts of this case are unique. It is a case where the purchaser seems to be creating the dispute in property with no intention to purchase the property. The purchaser has initially given a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore) and cheques of Rs.4,00,00,000/- (Rupees Four Crores) and created an artificial dispute of there being encumbrance in property and directed the seller not to encash the cheques and later on filed an application invoking Section 11 of the Act. In the meanwhile, application u/s 9 of the Act was also filed before the concerned Commercial Court wherein, some order has been passed against him. The appeal was filed before this Court bearing No.5176/2025 wherein, learned counsel approached for withdrawal of the appeal. This Court also notice that the original file of this Court is missing after the case was adjourned on the last date. At the request of the counsel, who was appearing on that day, the matter was adjourned for toady and learned counsel who was appearing earlier in Section 9 application and appeal, is present today also seeking adjournment. The approach of the applicants clearly spells out an attempt to misuse the process of law. [2026:RJ-JP:4378] (5 of 5) [ARBAP-159/2025] Firstly, this Court notice that so far as clause in the agreement is concerned, the same cannot be said to be a complete clause for arbitration relating to the property-in-question as it only refers to an agreement to the property. Secondly, this Court notice that there is no dispute left between the parties as the advance amount received has already been returned upon having been raised by the purchaser himself relating to the property. The approach adopted by the seller cannot be said in any manner to be unjustified. No dispute can be said to be still remaining for which this Court should appoint an Arbitrator, moreso as the appeal filed against the order of the Commercial Court where application u/s 9 of the Act was moved, has been withdrawn. Accordingly, this arbitration application is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) to be recovered as arrears of land and to be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Simple Kumawat /18