Delhi High Court
Jitendra Kumar Chopra vs Shiv Saran & Sons Huf & Anr. on 28 August, 2017
$~29
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 28.08.2017
+ ARB.A.(COMM.) 21/2017
JITENDRA KUMAR CHOPRA ..... Appellant
versus
SHIV SARAN & SONS HUF & ANR ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr P.K.Agrawal, Ms Mercy Hussain and Ms Tannya Sharma
For the Respondents/Claimants: Mr Yakesh Anand and Ms Sonam Anand.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
28.08.2017
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
IA No.9704/2017(exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
ARB. A. (COMM.) 21/2017
1. The Appellant, by this Appeal under Section 37 of the
Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act'), impugns order dated 03.08.2017 passed by the Arbitral
Tribunal.
2. By order dated 03.08.2017, the Arbitral Tribunal, on an
application of the respondent/claimant, under Section 17 of the Act,
had directed that the Appellant shall not sell or transfer one flat in
property No.W-99, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi, without
intimation and approval of the Tribunal.
3. The said order has been passed on the application under Section
17 of the Act of the respondent, wherein the respondent had sought a
restraint on the Appellant from selling first and second floor of
property No. W-99, Greater Kailash, Part-II, New Delhi, or any part
thereof or in the alternative to direct the Appellant to deposit a Fixed
Deposit in the sum of Rs.4 crores, which was stated to be equivalent
to the claim of the respondent.
4. The application is premised on the ground that in case the
applicant, who is a builder and who has constructed the building in
Collaboration with the Respondent/claimant, who was the owner of
the plot, were to sell his allocation in the property, the respondent
would not be in a position to execute the Award, if it were to be
passed in favour of the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Tribunal has
erred in putting an embargo/ restraint on sale of one Flat as the cost of
the Flat is much higher than the claim made by the respondent.
6. It is further contended that the claims are not maintainable and
the Appellant also has a counter-claim.
7. Learned counsel, however, submits that if the only issue is with
regard to provision of a security, the Appellant, without prejudice to
his rights and contentions, would be willing to provide a security of an
appropriate amount so as to secure the alleged claims of the
respondent as and when the Appellant intends to sell off the Flat.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that he has no
objection so long as the claim amount is secured.
9. In view of the above, the Appeal is disposed of with the
following directions:-
(i) The Appellant would be at liberty to negotiate for the sale of the
flats falling to his allocation, however, before the Appellant
creates any third party rights or accepts any advance payment,
the Appellant shall approach the Tribunal for determination of
the amount of security that the Appellant would be required to
furnish to the Tribunal, towards the alleged claims of the
respondent/claimant.
(ii) Only on furnishing the security amount, to be determined by the
Tribunal, the Appellant would be at liberty to transfer his
allocation.
10. It is clarified that this court has neither considered nor
expressed any opinion on the merits of the respective claims of either
the Respondent or the appellant.
11. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.
There shall be no order as to costs.
12. Order Dasti under signatures of the Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
AUGUST 28, 2017
'Sn'
