# Pramod Kumar Rao @ Munna Singh v. Legal Head Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 484
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-25
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 143 of 2025
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-kumar-rao-munna-singh-v-legal-head-sahara-india-commercial-corporation-53713
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Anuruddh Chaturvedi, Munna Tiwari

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to
entertain a suit for permanent injunction filed by
the plaintiff despite the existence of an
arbitration agreement between the parties.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 96, 151, Order 7 Rule 11, -
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Sections 8, 8(1), 9 - First Appeal u/s 96 of
CPC - filed by the plaintiff-appellant - against
judgment and decree passed in Original Suit -
plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction
against dispossession from a flat allotted by the
defendants - defendant moved an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC - Trial court
allowed the defendants' application, citing lack
of jurisdiction due to an arbitration clause -
plaintiff appealed under Section 96 CPC, arguing
that the arbitral tribunal could not grant the
relief sought - instant Appeal - court finds that,
it is admitted position that there is an arbitration
agreement between the between the plaintiff
and the defendant to decide all the dispute
arising
out
of
the
contract,
regarding
allotment of the disputed flat - in view of the
law laid down by the Apex Court in case of
Booz, Allen and Sundaram Finance Ltd. Court
held that Civil Court has got no jurisdiction in
this matter hence, by upholding the trial
court's decision, court affirming that the
dispute
falls
within
the
scope
of
the
arbitration agreement and that the arbitral
tribunal is competent to grant interim relief
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 - Accordingly, instant
first appeal is dismissed. (Para - 12, 13, 14)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11 )

CASE LAW CITED
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home
Finance Ltd. & Ors. - (2011 vol. 5 SCC 532) and
Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. T. Thankam - 2015
vol. 14 SCC 444.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and - Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996
8 All. Pramod Kumar Rao @ Munna Singh Vs. Legal Head Sahara India Commercial Corporation
 Ltd. & Ors.
485
LIST OF KEYWORDS
First
Appeal
-
Arbitration
Agreement
-
Jurisdiction - Permanent Injunction - Civil Court
- Allotment Cancellation - Possession Rights -
Interim Relief - Rejection of Plaint

CASE ARISING FROM
Original Suit No. 120 of 2020 (Pramod Kumar
vs. Sahara India and Others) - Filed before the
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gorakhpur

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Mr. Ajit Manit Tripathi,
Sushil Kumar Mishra.
Counsel
for
Respondent(s):
Anuruddha
Chaturvedi, Munna Tiwari

## Text

484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
some amount under the conventional heads,
this would be a travesty of justice and
mocking at a loss of an important human
being, due to negligence of another.

30. For the aforesaid reason, this Court
finds that the findings recorded by the
Tribunal granting compensation to the
claimant cannot be faulted. The main
ground as urged by the learned Standing
Counsel was in context with the entitlement
of
a
married
daughter
to
claim
compensation and no other ground was
pressed. The two appeals preferred by the
State
are
without
merit
and
are
consequently dismissed. Costs are made
easy. The award passed in Claim Petition
No.292 and 293 of 2009 are affirmed

31. Any amount deposited before this
Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal to
be released in favour of the claimant as per
the award and any short fall shall also be
made good with updated interest to the
claimant-respondents within 60 days from
today. The record of the Tribunal be
returned forthwith.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 484
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 143 of 2025

Pramod Kumar Rao @ Munna Singh
 ...Appellant
Versus
Legal Head Sahara India Commercial
Corporation Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Ajit Manit Tripathi, Sushil Kumar Mishra
Counsel for the Respondents:
Anuruddh Chaturvedi, Munna Tiwari

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to
entertain a suit for permanent injunction filed by
the plaintiff despite the existence of an
arbitration agreement between the parties.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 96, 151, Order 7 Rule 11, -
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -
Sections 8, 8(1), 9 - First Appeal u/s 96 of
CPC - filed by the plaintiff-appellant - against
judgment and decree passed in Original Suit -
plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction
against dispossession from a flat allotted by the
defendants - defendant moved an application
under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC - Trial court
allowed the defendants' application, citing lack
of jurisdiction due to an arbitration clause -
plaintiff appealed under Section 96 CPC, arguing
that the arbitral tribunal could not grant the
relief sought - instant Appeal - court finds that,
it is admitted position that there is an arbitration
agreement between the between the plaintiff
and the defendant to decide all the dispute
arising
out
of
the
contract,
regarding
allotment of the disputed flat - in view of the
law laid down by the Apex Court in case of
Booz, Allen and Sundaram Finance Ltd. Court
held that Civil Court has got no jurisdiction in
this matter hence, by upholding the trial
court's decision, court affirming that the
dispute
falls
within
the
scope
of
the
arbitration agreement and that the arbitral
tribunal is competent to grant interim relief
under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 - Accordingly, instant
first appeal is dismissed. (Para - 12, 13, 14)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11 )

CASE LAW CITED
Booz Allen and Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home
Finance Ltd. & Ors. - (2011 vol. 5 SCC 532) and
Sundaram Finance Ltd. v. T. Thankam - 2015
vol. 14 SCC 444.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and - Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996
8 All. Pramod Kumar Rao @ Munna Singh Vs. Legal Head Sahara India Commercial Corporation
 Ltd. & Ors.
485
LIST OF KEYWORDS
First
Appeal
-
Arbitration
Agreement
-
Jurisdiction - Permanent Injunction - Civil Court
- Allotment Cancellation - Possession Rights -
Interim Relief - Rejection of Plaint

CASE ARISING FROM
Original Suit No. 120 of 2020 (Pramod Kumar
vs. Sahara India and Others) - Filed before the
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gorakhpur

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Mr. Ajit Manit Tripathi,
Sushil Kumar Mishra.
Counsel
for
Respondent(s):
Anuruddha
Chaturvedi, Munna Tiwari

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. This first appeal under Section 96
C.P.C. has been filed by the plaintiffappellant against the impugned judgment
and decree dated 24.01.2025 passed by the
court of Civil Judge, Senior Division,
Gorakhpur in Original Suit No.120 of 2020
(Pramod Kumar vs. Sahara India and
others), whereby the application of the
defendants under Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C.
has been allowed on the ground that there
is an arbitration agreement between the
parties and as such, the Court has no
jurisdiction to decide the suit.

2. Learned counsel for the plaintiffappellant
submitted
that
the
order
impugned is erroneous because the trial
court has not applied its mind to the
controversy in issue. Learned counsel
submitted that the plaintiff is in possession
of the disputed property, which has been
allotted to the plaintiff by the defendants
and as such, the plaintiff has a right to
defend its possession. The plaintiff can
only be evicted by adopting due procedure,
in accordance with law. Learned counsel
further
submitted
that
the
relief
of
injunction sought in the suit, cannot be
granted by the arbitral tribunal, as such, the
trial court had the jurisdiction to decide the
suit. It was further submitted that the
plaintiff has been allotted the disputed
property, which has not been cancelled by
the defendants, as such, the plaintiff cannot
be
dispossessed.
The
defendants
are
adamant to dispossess the plaintiff from the
disputed property, as such, the plaintiff had
filed a suit for the relief of permanent
injunction,
which
has
been
illegally
dismissed at the initial stage vide impugned
order, holding that the trial court has got no
jurisdiction to decide the suit keeping in
view the arbitration agreement between the
parties.

3. Learned counsel for the caveator
defendant-respondents submitted that upon
an application been made by the plaintiff, a
flat was allotted to the plaintiff for about
Rs.71,00,000/- consideration, out of which
the
plaintiff
paid
Rs.7,50,000/-
on
application and further Rs.3,50,000/- on
allotment,
but
since
the
remaining
consideration of the flat was not paid by the
plaintiff, as such, the defendants after
serving legal notice on him, had cancelled
the allotment of the disputed flat and had
subsequently allotted that flat to third party
and had also returned the consideration
amount of Rs.10,00,000/- to the plaintiff.
Learned counsel further submitted that
since there is an existing arbitration
agreement between the parties, as such, the
matter in issue, can be referred to a duly
appointed arbitrator and for this reason, the
defendants had moved an application under
Section
8
of
the
Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Order 7
Rule 11 (d) C.P.C., which has been rightly
allowed by the impugned order. Learned
counsel further submitted that the arbitrator
is competent to grant interim injunction
also. Learned counsel submitted that in
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
view of the above legal position, appeal is
meritless and is liable to be dismissed at the
admission stage.

4. I have heard, learned counsel for
both the parties and perused the record.

5. It is well settled that while
disposing an application under Order 7
Rule 11 C.P.C. only the averments in the
plaint are to be examined and at this stage,
the pleadings in the written statement of the
defendant are not to be considered. It is
also well settled that if the case of the
plaintiff is barred by any law, then the
plaint has to be rejected under Order 7 Rule
11 C.P.C.

6. Section 8 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act,1996 reads as under:-

(1) A judicial authority, before
which an action is brought in a matter
which is the subject of an arbitration
agreement shall, if a party to the
arbitration agreement or any person
claiming through or under him, so applies
not later than the date of submitting his
first statement on the substance of the
dispute,
then,
notwithstanding
any
judgment, decree or order of the Supreme
Court or any Court, refer the parties to
arbitration unless it finds that prima facie
no valid arbitration agreement exists.

(2) The application referred to in
sub-section (1) shall not be entertained
unless it is accompanied by the original
arbitration agreement or a duly certified
copy thereof:

Provided that where the original
arbitration agreement or a certified copy
thereof is not available with the party
applying for reference to arbitration under
sub-section (1), and the said agreement or
certified copy is retained by the other party
to that agreement, then, the party so
applying shall file such application along
with a copy of the arbitration agreement
and a petition praying the Court to call
upon the other party to produce the
original arbitration agreement or its duly
certified copy before that Court.

(3)
Notwithstanding
that
an
application has been made under subsection (1) and that the issue is pending
before the judicial authority, an arbitration
may be commenced or continued and an
arbitral award made.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Booz
Allen And Hamilton Inc. vs. SBI Home
Finance Limited and Others (2011) 5 SCC
532, stated the principles which the Court
will have to decide before referring the
parties to Arbitration, which reads as under-:

"19. Where a suit is filed by one of
the parties to an arbitration agreement against
the other parties to the arbitration agreement,
and if the defendants file an application under
Section 8 stating that the parties should be
referred to arbitration, the court (judicial
authority) will have to decide:

(i) whether there is an arbitration
agreement among the parties;

(ii)whether all the parties to the
suit
are
parties
to
the
arbitration
agreement;

(iii) whether the disputes which
are the subject-matter of the suit fall within
the scope of arbitration agreement;

(iv)whether the defendant had
applied under Section 8 of the Act before
8 All. Pramod Kumar Rao @ Munna Singh Vs. Legal Head Sahara India Commercial Corporation
 Ltd. & Ors.
487
submitting his first statement on the
substance of the dispute; and

(v) whether the reliefs sought in
the suit are those that can be adjudicated
and granted in an arbitration."

8. The Apex Court in the case of
Sundaram Finance Limited and Another
vs. T. Thankam (2015) 14 SCC 444, held
as under:-

"8. Once there is an agreement
between the parties to refer the disputes or
differences arising out of the agreement to
arbitration, and in case either party,
ignoring the terms of the agreement,
approaches the civil court and the other
party, in terms of Section 8 of the
Arbitration Act, moves the court for
referring the parties to arbitration before
the first statement on the substance of the
dispute is filed, in view of the peremptory
language of Section 8 of the Arbitration
Act, it is obligatory for the court to refer
the parties to arbitration in terms of the
agreement, as held by this Court in P.
Anand Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju
[(2000) 4 SCC 539 : (2000) 2 SCR 684] .

9. The position was further
explained in Hindustan Petroleum Corpn.
Ltd.
v.
Pinkcity
Midway
Petroleums
[(2003) 6 SCC 503]. To quote: (SCC pp.
510-11, para 14)

"14. This Court in P. Anand
Gajapathi Raju v. P.V.G. Raju has held
that the language of Section 8 is
peremptory in nature. Therefore, in cases
where there is an arbitration clause in the
agreement, it is obligatory for the court to
refer the parties to arbitration in terms of
their arbitration agreement and nothing
remains to be decided in the original action
after such an application is made except to
refer
the
dispute
to
an
arbitrator.
Therefore, it is clear that if, as contended
by a party in an agreement between the
parties before the civil court, there is a
clause for arbitration, it is mandatory for
the civil court to refer the dispute to an
arbitrator. In the instant case the existence
of an arbitral clause in the agreement is
accepted by both the parties as also by the
courts below but the applicability thereof is
disputed by the respondent and the said
dispute is accepted by the courts below. Be
that as it may, at the cost of repetition, we
may again state that the existence of the
arbitration clause is admitted. If that be so,
in view of the mandatory language of
Section 8 of the Act, the courts below ought
to have referred the dispute to arbitration."

10. In Magma Leasing and
Finance Ltd. v. Potluri Madhavilata
[(2009) 10 SCC 103 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ)
57], the position has been restated holding
that no option is left to the court, once the
prerequisite conditions of Section 8 are
fully satisfied.

13. Once an application in due
compliance
with
Section
8
of
the
Arbitration Act is filed, the approach of the
civil court should be not to see whether the
court has jurisdiction. It should be to see
whether its jurisdiction has been ousted.
There is a lot of difference between the two
approaches. Once it is brought to the
notice of the court that its jurisdiction has
been taken away in terms of the procedure
prescribed under a special statute, the civil
court should first see whether there is
ouster
of
jurisdiction
in
terms
or
compliance with the procedure under the
special statute. The general law should
yield
to
the
special
law-
generalia
specialibus non derogant. In such a
488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
situation, the approach shall not be to see
whether there is still jurisdiction in the civil
court
under
the
general
law.
Such
approaches would only delay the resolution
of disputes and complicate the redressal of
grievance and of course unnecessarily
increase the pendency in the court."

9. It is apparent that the defendants
had moved an application under Order 7
Rule 11 C.P.C. read with 151 C.P.C. and
Section
8(1)
of
the
Arbitration
and
Conciliation Act, 1996 in the trial court,
wherein they submitted that the plaintiff has
defaulted in making the full payment of the
allotted flat within the stipulated time period
and as such, they had given notice to the
plaintiff to comply with the terms and
conditions of the agreement but still the
plaintiff failed to comply. It is mentioned in
this application that since the disputes
between the parties are to be decided through
arbitration, as such, it was prayed that the
matter be referred to arbitration. It has been
specifically mentioned in this application that
since there is an arbitration clause in the
agreement executed between the parties, as
such, the present suit is not maintainable.

10. The plaintiff opposed the above
application in the trial court on the ground
that the suit has been filed for the relief of
permanent injunction which can only be
granted by the competent civil court, as
such, the relief sought cannot be granted by
an
arbitrator
appointed
under
the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It
was further alleged that the plaintiff has
bonafidely paid substantial consideration of
the flat but the defendants are deliberately
not executing the sale deed of the flat, in
favour of the plaintiff.

11. From the plaint averments, it is
apparent that on an application made on
3.08.2018 by the plaintiff, a flat had been
allotted by the defendants to the plaintiff,
for a consideration of about Rs.71.57 lacs,
out of which the plaintiff has only paid an
amount of Rs.11 lacs and the remaining amount
is outstanding, which has not been paid to the
defendants. It is also apparent that the sale deed
of the flat has not been executed by the
defendants in favour of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff has concealed the fact whether he has
paid the whole amount of agreed consideration
to the defendants or not. According to the
plaintiff, the defendants have not provided the
facilities in the flat, which were promised,
regarding which he had informed the
defendants but still the defendants failed to
rectify the defects in the flat. According to the
plaintiff, he is in possession of the disputed flat
and the defendants are adamant to dispossess
him, hence the plaintiff had sought the relief of
permanent injunction for restraining the
defendants from dispossessing him from the
disputed flat.

12. It is apparent that there is a dispute
between the parties regarding the flat
allotted to the plaintiff by the defendants.
The defendants have filed the original
application form submitted by the plaintiff
along-with the terms and conditions of the
agreement, which disclose that there is
Clause-16 in the terms and conditions,
which reads as under:-

"16. Jurisdiction

In case of any dispute arising out
of this contract, it shall be referred to an
Arbitrator appointed by the Company,
whose decision shall be final and binding
on both parties. The jurisdiction of Court
shall be at Kolkata."

13. Since, there is an arbitration
agreement between the parties to decide all
8 All. Pratap Fransis Vs. Akil Ahmad & Ors.
489
the disputes arising out of the contract
between the plaintiff and the defendants,
regarding the allotment of the disputed flat,
which has not been denied by the plaintiff,
as such, in view of the law laid down by the
Apex
Court
in
the
case
of
Booz
Allen(supra)
and
Sundaram Finance
Limited(supra), the civil court has got no
jurisdiction in this matter. Further, the
Arbitral Tribunal is competent to grant the
relief of injunction under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. In
view of this, the trial court has rightly
allowed the defendant?s application under
Order 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. read with Section
8(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act,1996 by holding that the Court has got
no jurisdiction in this matter, since there is
an arbitration agreement between the
parties pertaining to the subject-matter of
the suit.

14. Accordingly, the instant first
appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. is meritless
and is dismissed at the admission stage.
Consequently, the impugned judgment and
decree dated 24.01.2025 passed in Original
Suit No.120 of 2020 (Pramod Kumar vs.
Sahara India and others) is affirmed.

15. Interim order granted by this Court
on 7.03.2025, stands vacated.

16. Both the parties shall bear their
respective costs of this appeal.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 489
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal Defective No. 185 of 2025
Pratap Fransis ...Appellant
Versus
Akil Ahmad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Avinash Pandey, Virendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether a First Appeal under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is maintainable
against an order passed by a Court of Small
Causes (Additional District Judge exercising
Small Cause Court jurisdiction) rejecting an
objection under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 96, 104(1), Order 21 Rule 97, -
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 -
Sections 24 and 25 - First Appeal - filed
u/section 96 of the CPC - against rejection of an
objection moved under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. -
SSC Suit for eviction - objection was filed in
execution proceedings arising from an ex parte
eviction decree in suit - appellant claimed
ownership of the disputed property based on a
Will of year 2007 - said Will became effective
only after the death of the testator in 2016 -
whereas the SCC decree was passed in 2010 -
appellant also filed a separate Original Suit in
2025 challenging the SCC decree and asserting
ownership - Court held that, the impugned order
is not appealable under Section 24 of the
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 -
Remedy lies in revision under Section 25 of the
PSCC Act, not in a first appeal under Section 96
CPC - therefore, present first Appeal stands
dismissed as not maintainable. (Para - 11)
Appeal Dismissed. (E-11 )

CASE LAW CITED
No any case was cited.

LIST OF ACTS
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - and - Provincial
Small Cause Courts Act, 1887

LIST OF KEYWORDS
First Appeal - Maintainability - Small Cause
Court - Order 21 Rule 97 CPC - Execution