Rakesh Thapar vs Nawal Khanna & Anr
2015 Latest Caselaw 9199 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         O.M.P. No.512/2007
%                                                10th DECEMBER, 2015

RAKESH THAPAR                                          ..... Petitioner

                          Through:       None.

                          versus

NAWAL KHANNA & ANR                                     ..... Respondents

                          Through:       None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?


VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1.           This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 impugns the Award dated 23.06.2007 passed by the

respondent no.2 in the disputes between the petitioner and the respondent

no.1. Respondent no.1 was the claimant in the arbitration proceedings and

the present petitioner was the respondent.


2.           The impugned Award holds that the respondent no.1/claimant is

50% owner of the property being industrial plot no.566 of 1000 sq.mts. in

Pace City II, Gurgaon, Haryana (hereinafter referred as the 'suit plot')

O.M.P. No.512/2007                                                Page 1 of 3
 provisionally allotted to the petitioner by Haryana Urban Development

Authority (H.U.D.A.). During the pendency of the present petition disputes

between the petitioner and the respondent no.1 were compromised in terms

of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 21.03.2011, however, H.U.D.A.

informed this Court that the petitioner and respondent no.1 had no rights to

the suit plot and petitioner was not entitled to allotment of the suit plot as

petitioner had not deposited the amount of Rs.49,26,054/-.


3.           I.A. No.19075/2012 was filed for directions to H.U.D.A. to

decide the representation and H.U.D.A. rejected the representation by its

order dated 05.07.2013. As per this order dated 05.07.2013, photocopy of

which is on this file, petitioner was not held entitled to the suit plot with

respect to which there were disputes as to the ownership between the

petitioner and respondent no.1.


4.           In view of the fact that the very property/suit plot, ownership of

which is sought to be pronounced upon by the impugned Award, does not

exist in the name of respondent no.1, accordingly, this petition is infructuous

because the Award dated 23.06.2007 itself is infructuous as the respondent

in the arbitration proceedings and the petitioner in the present petition has



O.M.P. No.512/2007                                                   Page 2 of 3
 not been allotted the disputed plot by H.U.D.A. Petition is accordingly

disposed of as infructuous in terms of the aforesaid observations.




DECEMBER 10, 2015                            VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

nn