Puri Const. Ltd. vs Larsen And Toubro
2004 Latest Caselaw 1382 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This application on behalf of the petitioners under Section 151 CPC seeks return of the title deeds, sanctioned/structural plans and calculations as well as the entire record of the sales which belong to the petitioners and are lying deposited in the registry of this Court pursuant to the Order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 30th May, 2002, passed in FAO.No.319/01.

2. During the pendency of the award on 30th May, 2002, the learned Single Judge of this passed the following order:-

''FAO 319/2001

Counsel for the appellant, in view of the suggestions made by this Court and upon instructions from the officer of the appellant present in Court, agreed that the Title Deeds and the Sanctioned Plans in respect of the land in question, which are in possession of the appellant shall be deposited with the Registrar of this Court and shall be kept in a sealed cover till the Arbitrator, before whom the proceedings are almost at final stage, passes his Award and takes decision in regard to custody of these documents. He further submits that one of the conditions will be that these Title Deeds as well as Sanctioned Plans shall not be handed over to any of the parties before the expiry of 30 days after the passing of the Award so that the party, aggrieved by the Award, may approach the superior court for appropriate directions. It is also submitted that a further condition shall be attached that till the time the award is passed, and 30 days time therefore, no party shall apply to the court for the release/inspection of these documents so that they remain in safe custody of the Court. Counsel for the respondents have no objection to this proposal and pray that the appeal may be disposed of in terms of this proposal. The appeal is disposed of modifying the impugned order in terms of the aforesaid proposal agreed to by all the parties.

The Title Deeds and sanctioned plans be deposited with the Registrar of this Court within 15 days and the same shall remain in a sealed cover in his custody as stated above.

The appeal stands disposed of.

3.The learned Single Judge of this Court thus ordered that the title deeds as well as the sanctioned plans shall not be handed over to any of the parties before the expiry of the 30 days after the passing of the Award so that the party, aggrieved by the Award, may approach the superior Court for appropriate directions. Thus not only did the order subsist during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings leading to the award but it was also to subsist for a period of 30 days thereafter so as to permit any of the aggrieved party to approach the superior Court for appropriate directions. The title deeds as well as the sanctioned plans accordingly remain deposited in this Court during the pendency of the award and thereafter it is not in dispute that the Award dated 28th December, 2002 is facing objections, i.e., OMP.No.26/03 filed in this Court by the L and T, i.e., the respondent in these proceedings.

4. Mr. Nayyar, the learned senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners/applicants in this petition has sought to contend that since the respondent at best has a claim of Rs.8.10 crores against them, the respondents are not entitled to continue to press for retention of the title deeds/documents lying deposited in this Court and the petitioners/applicants are entitled to withdraw the said title deeds/plans. He has further submitted that the objections(OMP.No.26 of 2003) to the award dated 28th December, 2002 did not pertain to the retention of the title deeds/plans. Mr. Nayyar has also submitted that the applicants/petitioners herein are prepared to offer a security of Rs.8.10 crores to the satisfaction of the Court.

5. Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, the learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent/L and T has submitted that the objections(OMP.No.26 of 2003) to the award dated 28th December, 2002 continued the arbitral proceedings and the award become unenforceable unless and until the objections to the award are disposed of. Therefore he submits that any order passed during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings ought not be varied to the detriment of his clients irrespective of the fact that whether or not his client prefers objections against the retention of the documents. He has further stressed on his counter-claim of Rs.2.8 crores which was rejected by the learned arbitrator against which he has certainly preferred objections. He has also submitted that the respondent/LandT has deposited a sum of Rs.8.10 crores with the Lord Krishna Bank on behalf of the petitioners/applicants and that amount covered by the award also requires to be adjusted.

6. In my view the interim order dated 30th May, 2002 which has been passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings and that order still subsists during the pendency of the objections(OMP.No.26 of 2003) to the award dated 28th December, 2002. No prima facie case is made out by the petitioners/applicants to vary the said interim order dated 30th May, 2002. If the interim order subsisted during the arbitral proceedings, there is no valid reason why the interim order ought not to continue during the period when the objections to the award are pending hearing in this Court. Accordingly, the prayer made in this application to release the title deeds as well as the sanctioned plans, lying deposited in this Court pursuant to the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 30th May, 2002, is rejected.

7. Application stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly.

OMP.No.24/2003 and IA.Nos.1052, 5441/04

List the matter on 23rd February, 2005.