Nagpur: In a significant development in the Gondwana Club–Maria Chang dispute, the Court in Nagpur has rejected an application filed by Gondwana Club seeking to have the dispute referred to arbitration. The order was passed on October 16, 2026, by Judge Dr. Sujitkumar Tayde in Regular Civil Suit (RCS) No. 167/2026.
Adv. Rohan Gautam appeared for the plaintiff, Maria Chang, in the matter.
The club’s application was filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, read with Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant argued that an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties prevented the court from entertaining the suit.
Maria Chang opposed the application, maintaining that the suit was maintainable before the Small Causes Court.
According to the court order, the dispute concerns premises occupied by Chang for operating Uphill Cafe under a written agreement executed on November 23, 2023. The agreement provided for monthly rent of ₹50,000 plus applicable taxes, a security deposit of ₹2 lakh and a stated tenure of five years.
The plaintiff alleged that the club displayed a notice on January 6, 2026, announcing that the cafe would remain closed from January 8, without prior consultation or notice terminating the agreement. She further alleged that she had not voluntarily surrendered possession of the premises.
The court examined the agreement and submissions made by both sides, including the arbitration clause relied upon by the defendant. It referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation (2021), which addresses the arbitrability of landlord-tenant disputes and the limits imposed by legislation granting exclusive jurisdiction to specific courts or forums.
The court concluded that the application, as filed, was not maintainable under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It also observed that the existence of an arbitration clause, by itself, was not a ground for rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Accordingly, the court rejected the application and made no order as to costs.
The order concerns the maintainability of the defendant’s application. It does not finally decide the underlying dispute over possession or the other reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
