Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Khajuraho Greens Llp vs Bestco Cables Private Limited on 15 July, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO………….. OF 2026
(@Special Leave Petition (C) No.21642/2026)
KHAJURAHO GREENS LLP & ORS. Appellant (s)
VERSUS
BESTCO CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from the order passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 29.5.2026 preferred by
the respondents before us under Article 227 of the
Constitution seeking appropriate relief in respect of Section
9 application preferred under the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act, 1996”) before the Court in
NOIDA. The High Court passed the following impugned order:-
“1.Heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned senior counsel
assisted by Raghav Dev Garg, learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondent.
Learned senior counsel submits that an application
under section 9 of the Arbitration and
Reconciliation Act, 1996 has been filed which is
still pending before the Commercial Court. He
further submits that the respondent has filed
Matter Under Article 227 No 2792 of 2026 in which
interim protection has been granted by order dated
27.2.2026 staying the effect and operation of the
Signature Not Verified
order dated 182.2026. He further submits that under
Digitally signed by
the grab of the said order the respondents are
CHANDRESH
Date: 2026.07.21
18:25:33 IST
proceeding to dispose of the property in question
Reason:
as well as the Commercial Court is not deciding the
application filed under section 9 of the Act.In view of the facts and circumstances of the case,
list this matter as fresh on 7.7.2026 along with1
with connected matter.
Till the next date of listing the respondent shall
not create any third party right over the property
in question.”
3. The appellants being dissatisfied with the impugned order
passed by the High Court referred to above, are here before
us.
4. We heard Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, the learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants and Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, the
learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
5. It appears from the materials on record that there is one
petition preferred by the appellants before us, i.e., under
Article 227 of the Constitution being Petition No. 2792 of
2026 before the High Court. This was first in point of time.
In the said petition, the appellants raised an issue with
regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the NOIDA Court to
adjudicate the Section 9 application preferred by the
respondents. In the said petition, the very same learned Judge
of the High Court passed the following order on 27.02.2026:-
“1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Sri Adarsh Bhushan, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri Vinay Khare, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Shikhar Kaushal, learned
counsel for respondents.
2. Sri Khare raises a preliminary objection about
the maintainability of the present writ petition
and submits that the present writ petition is not
maintainable in view of Section 8 read with Section
13 of the Commercial Courts Act and the petitioners
are liable to file appeal.
3. Confronted with the said fact, Sri Anil Bhushan,
learned Senior Advocate refers proviso to Section
13 and submits that the present writ petition is
maintainable.
2
4. In view of above, perusal of the record shows
that the present writ petition is maintainable as
the application of the petitioner filed under Order
VII Rule 10 as well as Section 151 C.P.C. for
return of application for want of jurisdiction, has
been rejected.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
a partnership agreement was executed on 27.08.2024
at Bhopal, M.P., which contemplates an arbitration
clause in para no. 13.4 and therefore, if any
dispute arises between the parties, the
jurisdiction of M.P. Courts are there. He further
submits that the respondent nos. 1 & 2 were
expelled from the partnership firm on 27.01.2026.
The said order has not been assailed but an appeal
has been filed under Section 9 with the relief
which cannot be granted by the Commercial Court.
The matter ought to have been referred to the
arbitrator as contemplated in the agreement. In
support of his submission, he has relied upon the
judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Ravi Ranjan Development Pvt. Ltd. versus
Aditya Kumar Chatterjee, reported in 2022 SCC
OnLine SC 568.
6. The said fact has seriously been opposed by the
learned counsel for respondents and submits that
Section 16 of the C.P.C. empowers the filing of
present application and submits that part of
jurisdiction is within the territorial jurisdiction
of the Noida Court as the property belongs to
partnership firm is situated in Noida, therefore,
has rightly filed the appeal before the Commercial
Court.
7. The matter requires consideration.
8. The respondents may file counter affidavit
within a period of four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit,
if any, may be filed within a week, thereafter.
9. List thereafter.
10. Till the next date of listing, the impugned
order shall be kept in abeyance.”
6. Thus, on one hand, the appellants, first in point of
time, raised an issue with regard to the territorial
jurisdiction of the NOIDA Court to adjudicate the application
under Section 9 and later in point of time, the respondents
3
before us moved a petition for expeditious hearing of the
Section 9 petition before the NOIDA Court.
7. Prima facie, we are of the view that the very procedure
adopted by the High Court is not correct.
8. In fact, there was no good reason for the respondents to
prefer any petition before the High Court under Article 227 of
the Constitution for expeditious disposal of their Section 9
petition.
9. They should have appeared in the very same first petition
preferred by the appellants and should have raised all
contentions available to them in law.
10. We are of the view that let both the petitions referred
to above be heard on 07.08.2026 without fail.
11. Urgent hearing of these two petitions is necessary to
avoid further complications in the matter.
12. The impugned order passed by the High Court is hereby
set aside.
13. A strong apprehension has been expressed by the learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondents that if the
interim order is vacated, the appellants may create third
party rights.
14. It is needless to clarify that pending the proceedings
before the Court if there is any alienation or any third party
rights are created, the same would always be subject to lis
pendens.
15. Having appeared in the petition preferred by the
appellants first in point of time, we are of the view that
4
there was no good reason or ground for the respondents to
prefer their 227 petition.
16. With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.
17. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
……………….J.
[J.B.PARDIWALA]
……………….J.
[K. VINOD CHANDRAN]
NEW DELHI;
JULY 15,2026.
5
ITEM NO.30 COURT NO.6 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.21642/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
29-05-2026 in MUA227 No. 7441/2026 passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad]
KHAJURAHO GREENS LLP & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BESTCO CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. Respondent(s)
IA No. 178169/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
Date : 15-07-2026 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRANFor Petitioner(s) :Mr. Rajiv Shakdher, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Megha Karnwal, AOR
Mr. Akshay Ringe, Adv.
Mr. Aaditya Thorat, Adv.
Ms. Awanitika, Adv.
Mr. Muktesh Bajpai, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Sharma, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nitesh Jain, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Bhargava, Adv.
Ms. Parul Khurana, Adv.
Ms. Sakshi Tripathi, Adv.
Ms. Shruti Verma, Adv.
A. Joshi, Adv.
Ms. Kavya Verma, Adv.
Ms. Amrita Panda, AOR
6
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
7
