Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2221 (RAJ)

DAMINI TIKKIWAL D/O SHRI DILIP TIKKIWAL v. SHRI ANIL KUMAR SAXENA S/O SHRI MANGLI PRASAD SAXENA

ARBAP/29/2025 · 2026-04-13

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:15320] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Arbitration Application No. 29/2025 Damini Tikkiwal D/o Shri Dilip Tikkiwal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o C-507, Siddharth Nagar, Near Jaipur Airport, Jaipur. ----Applicant Versus 1. Shri Anil Kumar Saxena S/o Shri Mangli Prasad Saxena, Aged About 68 Years, R/o 30A, WHO Colony, Ambabadi, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. M/s Millennium Cargo Movers LLP, A Limited Liability Partnership Having Its Registered Office At 50-A(South Part), Sumer Nagar Extension, Q-Block, Mansarover, Jaipur, Through Its Designated Partner. ----Non-Applicants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak with Mr. Aditya Bohra, Mr. Kanishak Singhal & Ms. Priyanshi Roongta For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora with Mr. Anuj Jain HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 13/04/2026 1. It is stated that document which is being relied on by the applicant for appointment of an Arbitrator is alleged to be forged one and an F.I.R. has been registered by the non-applicant(s) with respect to the said document. A Criminal Misc. Petition No.3205/2025 is also pending before this Court. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant(s) submits that the police has given a finding that the document is forged. Although, no charge sheet has been filed by them, as by way of an interim order, the concerned Court had granted an interim stay [2026:RJ-JP:15320] (2 of 2) [ARBAP-29/2025] directing that no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant. 3. Considering the nature of the dispute, as above, I am not inclined to appoint an Arbitrator in this matter at this stage. 4. However, the applicant would be free to move fresh application after decision of criminal case. 5. Accordingly, the present Arbitration Application is dismissed at this stage. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ RASHMI /13