Jayotikaben Deelipbhai Patel vs Rajesh birla Director of megstone logipkars pvt.ltd. Advocate - D N TRIVEDI — 59/2019
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 9,. Status: HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION. Next hearing: 05th June 2026.
SPCS - SPECIAL CIVIL SUIT
CNR: GJKH110017892019
Next Hearing
05th June 2026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
59/2019
Filing Date
30-11-2019
Registration No
59/2019
Registration Date
30-11-2019
Court
TALUKA COURT, KHEDA
Judge
1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Jayotikaben Deelipbhai Patel
Adv. D B BHATT
Rahulkumar Deelipbhai Patel
Adv. D.B.Bhatt
Akshaykumar Deelipbhai Patel
Adv. D.B.Bhatt
Respondent(s)
Rajesh birla Director of megstone logipkars pvt.ltd. Advocate - D N TRIVEDI
SAHIAHMAD GULAM MAHMAD JAMBUDIWALA
Adv. M G SHAIKH
MAHERUNISHA SAHIDAHMED JAMBUDIWALA
Adv. M G SHAIKH
MAHMAD SOEB SAHIAHMAD JAMBUDIWALA
Adv. M G SHAIKH
ATIYABANU MAHMAD IKBAL SHEKH
Adv. M G SHAIKH
MAHMAD SALMAN SAIDAHMAD JAMBUDIWALA
Adv. M G SHAIKH
MAHMAD ANSH GULAM MAHMAD JAMBUDIWALA
Adv. M G SHAIKH
Hearing History
Judge: 1-ADDL. SR. CIVIL JUDGE & A.C.J.M.
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 06-03-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION | |
| 20-02-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION | |
| 06-02-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION | |
| 09-01-2026 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION | |
| 10-10-2025 | HEARING ON INJUNCTION APPLICATION |
Interim Orders
Application dismissed. The court rejected the defendant's application to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Although an arbitration clause exists in the allotment letter, the court found that the plaintiff's actual dispute concerns cancellation of the underlying sale-deed on grounds of lack of consideration—a matter beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement and not covered by an arbitration clause in the sale-deed itself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Application dismissed. The court rejected the defendant's application to refer the dispute to arbitration under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Although an arbitration clause exists in the allotment letter, the court found that the plaintiff's actual dispute concerns cancellation of the underlying sale-deed on grounds of lack of consideration—a matter beyond the scope of the arbitration agreement and not covered by an arbitration clause in the sale-deed itself. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Explore other courts