2026:JHHC:20735-DB p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 706 of 2026 Hope Healthcare Private Limited through Director, Mr. Arvind Kumar Jha, S/o Shri Madan Mohan Jha, aged about 51 years, R/o House No. 2K-88, Bariatu Housing Colony, Bariatu, P.O. RIMS, Ranchi-834009 …. ….. Petitioner Versus Nagarmal Modi Seva Sadan, through its Secretary, Mr. Ashish Modi R/o-Seva Sadan Path, Upper Bazar, P.O. -G.P.O., P.S. Kotwali Ranchi, Jharkhand – 834001. …. ….. Respondent --------- CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR --------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Harsh Preet Singh, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Parth Jalan, Advocate --------- 02/Dated: 13.07.2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is an abuse of the process of the Court. 3. The petitioner prayed for and obtained ad interim relief from the Commercial Court on 10.04.2026, with only a day’s notice to the opposite party. 4. The Commercial Court, at several places, has recorded that it was granting only ad interim urgent relief in favour of the petitioner subject to certain terms and conditions. The order very specifically states that the petitioner should co-operate in the proceedings and the petitioner will not take undue and unreasonable adjournment for hearing of the petition and in this regard the petitioner will give an undertaking and if at any point of time it is found that the petitioner is taking undue 2026:JHHC:20735-DB p. 2 adjournments or not co-operating in the disposal of this case, immediately and forthwith this injunction will be revoked by this Court. 5. Further, the Court also clarified that the observation made in the order dated 10.04.2026 shall have no effect while deciding this application finally after hearing both the parties. The next date for compliance was set for 20.04.2026. 6. As noted above, at several places, the order dated 10.04.2026 refers only to the grant of ad interim urgent reliefs under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. The last paragraph of the order dated 10.04.2026, which is paraphrased above, is transcribed below for the convenience of reference:- “Further it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner will co-operate in the proceedings and petitioner will not take undue and unreasonable adjournment for the hearing of the petition in this regard petitioner will give an undertaking if any point of time it is found that petitioner is taking undue adjournment or not co-operating the case immediately and forthwith this injunction will be revoked by this Court. Observation made in this order having no any effect while deciding this application finally after hearing both the parties. Next date 20.04.2026 for compliance.” 8. The circumstance that ad interim relief was granted after giving only a day’s notice to the respondent is borne from the record. That, coupled with express reference to grant of only ad interim urgent reliefs and ultimate paragraph in the order dated 2026:JHHC:20735-DB p. 3 10.04.2026 which is quoted above makes it clear that the application was yet to be finally heard and pending the final hearing, an urgent ad interim relief was granted. Significantly, the order dated 10.04.2026 was never challenged by the petitioner. 9. The petitioner now challenges the order dated 15.06.2026, to the extent it now posts the matter in Commercial Arbitration Case No. 9 of 2026 for “final hearing”. 10. Paragraph 1.a of this petition, which incorporates the prayer clause, seeks to set aside only the portion of the order dated 15.06.2026 “insofar as it directs that Commercial Arbitration Case No. 9/2026 is fixed for final hearing”. The petitioner also seeks “a restraint on the Commercial Court from proceeding with any further hearing in the Section 9 proceedings which, according to the petitioner, has already attained finality on 10.04.2026”. 11. The petitioner’s understanding that the order dated 10.04.2026 was a final order not subject to any further hearing is entirely misconceived and far from bona fide. In fact, this appears to be a surreptitious means of circumventing the Commercial Court’s direction to the petitioner to co-operate in the further proceedings in Commercial Arbitration Case No. 9 of 2026. 12. Since the petitioner, at the stage of grant of urgent ad-interim reliefs after serving the opposite party just a day in advance, was warned about seeking unreasonable adjournments for the 2026:JHHC:20735-DB p. 4 hearing of the petition and was also called upon to give an undertaking to that effect, the petitioner, it seems, is now belatedly contending that there was nothing further remaining to be done in Commercial Arbitration Case No. 9 of 2026, except reporting compliance. 13. Therefore, contrary to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the filing of this petition was bona fide, we are satisfied that there is no bona fide in the institution of this petition, meant only to stall the final disposal of the Commercial Arbitration Case No. 9 of 2026. Accordingly, we are satisfied that this petition is required to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 14. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the matter was posted only for reporting compliance. This is also not quite correct. In any event, there is nothing inconsistent with insisting upon compliance, subject to which an ad interim order was granted, and at the same time, after reasonable opportunity is granted to the opposite parties, consider whether the ad interim order should be confirmed pending the arbitration proceedings, which are only at a very nascent stage. 15. The fact that the order dated 10.04.2026 refers to the next date for reporting or considering compliance does not mean or imply that there was to be no further hearing in Commercial 2026:JHHC:20735-DB p. 5 Arbitration Case No. 9 of 2026 after a full, or at least an effective, opportunity was granted to the opposite party. 16. The argument now urged is based on a distortion of the order and is intended to stall further proceedings in Commercial Arbitration Case No. 9 of 2026. For this, the petitioner presumes that the order dated 10.04.2026 was final and that there was no question of any further hearing in Commercial Arbitration Case No. 9 of 2026. From the tenor of the order dated 10.04.2026 and the circumstances surrounding it, this belated impression can hardly be regarded as bona fide; it seems to be only an attempt to stall further hearing in the matter. 17. For all the above reasons, we dismiss this petition with cost of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the respondent within a week from today. The cost may be either paid to the respondent or deposited before the Commercial Court taking up Commercial Arbitration Case No. 9 of 2026 within a week from today. If the amount is deposited, the respondent is permitted to withdraw such cost. 18. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of. (M. S. Sonak, C.J.) (Rajesh Shankar, J.) July 13, 2026 N.A.F.R. VK/Nandini/Cp.2 Uploaded on 15 07.2026