Delhi High Court
M/S Homeland Buildwell Private ... vs Shri Sunil Sood on 19 September, 2017
$~28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 19.09.2017
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 267/2017
M/S HOMELAND BUILDWELL PRIVATE LTD. ..... Petitioner
versus
SHRI SUNIL SOOD ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr. Akhil Sachar, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav
Srivastava, Mr. Pradeep Chhindra and Mr. Aditya
Bakshi, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') seeking a
restraint on the respondent from selling, alienating, transferring,
parting with possession or creating any third party rights in the unsold
stock of shops/showrooms/office spaces in 37 Bighas in village
Kalyanpur, Baddi.
2. As per the petitioner, respondent had approached the petitioner
seeking finance for purchase of land in Baddi in the State of Himachal
Pradesh for the purposes of development and construction of
Multiplex Commercial Complex Project.
3. As per the petitioner, petitioner invested Rs.4,32,59,600/-
(Rupees Four Crores Thirty Two Lacs Fifty Nine Thousand and Six
Hundred Only) towards his share towards the re-development of the
said property. The parties also entered into a Collaboration Agreement
dated 11.08.2006.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that though respondent was
initially to hand over 90% of the built-up area to the petitioner, the
respondent unilaterally sold a substantial portion thereof.
Subsequently, it was agreed that respondent shall pay to the petitioner
the investment made by the petitioner along with interest at the rate of
7% per annum. The respondent even issued a cheque in the sum of
Rs.7,89,92,685/- to the petitioner for the said amount, however, the
cheque has been dishonoured.
5. By order dated 21.07.2017, this Court had restraint the
respondent from selling, alienating, transferring, parting with
possession or creating any third party interest in the 19 showrooms
and 8 office spaces mentioned in the said order.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submits that the
petitioner has concealed material facts and made several
misrepresentations and mislead the court into passing the said order.
7. It is contended that it is not the respondent who is in breach but
the petitioner and petitioner is not entitled to any order of protection.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the same.
9. By an order of today's date in ARB. P. 468/2017 a Sole
Arbitrator has been appointed to adjudicate the claims and counter
claims, if any, of the respondent arising out of collaboration
agreement dated 11.08.2006.
10. Learned Counsel for the parties agree that this petition under
section 9 of the Act be treated as an application under section 17 of
the Act to the Arbitrator and the arbitrator be requested to
expeditiously dispose of the same.
11. In view of the above, with the consent of the parties, this
petition is disposed of in the following terms:
11.1 This petition shall be treated as an application under
section 17 of the Act;
11.2 The reply filed by the respondent to this petition shall be
treated as the reply to the section 17 application;
11.3 The parties shall appear before the arbitrator on
26.09.2017 at 4:00 p.m. for directions;
11.4 Copy of the petition and reply filed by the respondents
before this court shall be filed before the arbitrator on
26.09.2017;
11.5 The petitioner shall file his rejoinder to the reply filed by
the respondent, before the arbitrator on 26.09.2017;
11.6 The interim order dated 21.07.2017 shall continue till the
Arbitrator modifies, varies, vacates or confirms the same;
11.7 The arbitrator is requested to dispose of the application
under Section 17 of the Act within a period of 30 days of
entering into reference.
12. It is clarified that the Arbitrator shall be at liberty to vacate,
modify, vary or confirm the interim order dated 21.07.2017 without
being influenced by anything stated either in this order or in the said
order dated 21.07.2017.
13. It is further clarified that this court has neither examined nor
commented upon the allegation of the respondent of misrepresentation
by the petitioner and the denial thereof by the petitioner. The said
issue is left open.
14. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
15. Order Dasti under the signatures of Court Master.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
SEPTEMBER 19, 2017
nn
