_edited.png)
Supreme court sets aside high court order, directs connected article 227 petitions on section 9 jurisdiction be heard together
Case Details
Case Title: Khajuraho Greens LLP and Ors. v. Bestco Cables Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 8995 of 2026 (Special Leave Petition (C) No. 21642/2026)
Coram: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran The Supreme Court has set aside an order of the Allahabad High Court and directed that two connected petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, arising out of a Section 9 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, be heard together.
The Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran was hearing an appeal against the High Court's order passed in a petition filed by the respondents seeking expeditious disposal of their Section 9 application pending before the Commercial Court at NOIDA.
Background
The appellants had earlier filed a petition under Article 227 before the same High Court, being the first in point of time, raising an issue regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the NOIDA Court to adjudicate the Section 9 application. In that petition, the appellants relied on a partnership agreement dated 27.08.2024 executed at Bhopal, containing an arbitration clause, to contend that the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of courts in Madhya Pradesh, and stated that respondent nos. 1 and 2 had been expelled from the partnership firm on 27.01.2026. The High Court, by order dated 27.02.2026, kept the order impugned in that petition in abeyance and directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit.
The respondents subsequently filed a separate petition under Article 227 seeking expeditious hearing of their Section 9 application, contending that the appellants were proceeding to dispose of the property in question under cover of the interim protection granted in their earlier petition, and that the Commercial Court was not deciding the Section 9 application. By the impugned order, the High Court listed the matter afresh along with the connected matter which led the respondents before HC, appear as the appellant before the Supreme Court.
Findings
The Supreme Court held that the procedure adopted by the High Court was not correct, and that there was no good reason for the respondents to have preferred a separate petition under Article 227 for expeditious disposal of their Section 9 application. It observed that the respondents should instead have appeared in the earlier petition filed by the appellants and raised all contentions available to them therein.
The Court set aside the impugned order and directed that both petitions be heard together on 07.08.2026, observing that urgent hearing was necessary to avoid further complications in the matter. It clarified that pending the proceedings, any alienation or creation of third party rights over the property would remain subject to the doctrine of lis pendens.
The appeal was disposed of, along with pending applications.
Comments