Ganton Limited vs Anova Infracon Private
2012 Latest Caselaw 1166 Del

59
$~
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+    O.M.P. 889/2011

     GANTON LIMITED                            ..... Petitioner
               Through:     Mr.Anil Sapra, Sr. Advocate with
                            Mr.Gaurav Mitra, Mr.Sachin Midha, Advs.

                versus

     ANOVA INFRACON PRIVATE
     LIMITED & OTHERS                     ..... Respondent
                Through: Mr.Harish Malhotra, Sr. Advocate and
                         Mr.Sanjeev Sachdeva, Sr. Advocate with
                         Sanjay S. Chhabra, Advocate

     CORAM:
     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI

               ORDER

% 21.02.2012

1. Parties are common in the present petition as also in O.M.P.

No.754/2011. By the present petition, petitioner has filed objections to the award dated 14.06.2011. O.M.P. No.754/2011 was filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim relief. Parties arrived at an amicable settlement in O.M.P. No.754/2011 on 16.12.2011. As per clause (vi) of the consent order dated 16.12.2011, parties had agreed to withdraw and/ or not press all proceedings against each other and/ or their officers and employees. Agreed terms as mentioned in the order dated 16.12.2011, are reproduced below:

"(i) Petitioner or a nominee of the petitioner, which shall be a subsidiary of the petitioner and whose name will be given within fourteen (14) days from today, will contribute 70% of the entire dues payable to Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (for short, "YEIDA") by way of premium and all instalments. Upon payments being made to YEIDA and the execution of a lease deed, respondent no.1 shall immediately execute a sub-lease, as per YEIDA norms, in favour of the aforesaid nominee of the petitioner for 55% of the unencumbered area which should be of the same character/use as the 45% being retained by the respondent.

(ii) Petitioner and/or its subsidiary shall make all such payments to YEIDA on or before 04.02.2012, so that the ratio of payments between the petitioner and the respondent is 70:30 respectively, to facilitate execution of a lease deed by YEIDA.

(iii) Respondent shall make an application for extension of time to make the balance payment to YEIDA on or before 04.02.2012.

(iv) In the event of the petitioners and/or their nominees fail to comply with and make payment to YEIDA on or before 04.02.2012, petitioners and/or its subsidiary-nominee shall pay to the respondent a sum of Rs.1.0 crore in lieu of all or every claim of the respondent, and shall forfeit all the rights of the petitioner and/or its subsidiary nominee by or under or in the joint venture agreement dated 27.12.2010 and the land in question.

(v) In the event of respondent failing to comply with the respondent's obligation to immediately executing a sub-lease, as stated aforesaid, it will be open to the petitioner and/or its subsidiary nominee, to enforce the said obligation by way of specific performance.

(vi) Parties agree to withdraw and/or not press all proceedings against each other and/or their officers and employees."

2. The petitioner has failed to honour the terms of the settlement. In view of clause (vi) of the agreed terms, present objections cannot be entertained and the same are accordingly, dismissed.

                                                                G.S.SISTANI,J
FEBRUARY          21, 2012
ssn
O.M.P. 889/2011