Nagpur court rejects Gondwana Club plea to refer Maria Chang dispute to arbitration

A Nagpur court has dealt a setback to Gondwana Club in its dispute with Maria Chang, rejecting the club's application to refer the matter to arbitration. Judge Dr Sujeetkumar Tayade passed the order on October 16, 2026, in Regular Civil Suit (RCS) No. 167/2026.

Advocate Rohan Gautam appeared for the plaintiff, Ms Chang.

The club's application was filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It also cited Order VII Rule 11 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The defendant club argued that the agreement between the parties contains an arbitration clause, so the court cannot hear the claim.

Ms Chang opposed the application. She argued that the claim is maintainable before the Small Causes Court.

According to the court's order, the dispute concerns the premises where Ms Chang runs Uphill Cafe. She held the space under a written agreement of November 23, 2023. The agreement fixed rent at Rs 50,000 a month plus applicable tax, a security deposit of Rs 2 lakh and a term of five years.

The plaintiff alleges that on January 6, 2026, the club put up a notice saying the cafe would remain closed from January 8. She says there was no prior discussion and no notice of termination of the agreement. She also alleges that she did not give up possession of the premises voluntarily.

The court examined the agreement and the submissions of both sides, including the arbitration clause the defendant relied on. It cited the Supreme Court judgment in Vidya Drolia vs Durga Trading Corporation (2021), which deals with the scope of arbitration in landlord-tenant disputes and the limits set by laws that give particular courts or forums special powers.

The court concluded that the application, as filed, is not maintainable under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. It also held that the mere existence of an arbitration clause cannot be a ground for rejecting a suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

On this basis the court dismissed the application and made no order as to costs.

The order deals only with the maintainability of the defendant's application. The court has not yet given a final decision on the main dispute over possession or on the plaintiff's other demands.