Delhi High Court
M/S J.K. Goyal Estate Developers ... vs Balwant Kaur on 11 December, 2018
$~50
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 11.12.2018
+ EX.P. 205/2014
M/S J.K. GOYAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD ..... Decree Holder
Through Mr. Ravi Sikri, Sr. Adv with Mr.
Gaurav Goyal, Mr. Abhishek, Mr.
J.K.Goyal and Ms. Parul Sharma,
Advs
versus
BALWANT KAUR ..... Judgement Debtor
Through Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Adv with Mr.
Ajay Verma, Adv for J.D. No.2.
Mr. Bakshi Tajeshwar Singh, Court
Auctioneer.
Mr. D.S. Chauhan, Ms. Ruchi Singh
and Mr. Prashant Kumar, Advs for
Objector/UCO Bank.
Ms. Mir Baby Lal, Adv for Objector
Mr. Kulbushan Rai Bajaj.
Mr. Anish Dhingra and Ms. Mansi
Chhabra, Advs for M/s Arora
Buildwell.
Mr. Sumeet Batra, Adv for Objector
Ramgarhia Co-operative Bank.
Mr. Ishan Khanna, Adv for Canara
Bank.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.: (ORAL)
Ex. Appl. (OS) Nos. 501/2015, Ex. Appl. (OS) No.575/2016, Ex.
EX. P. 205/2014 Page 1 of 5
Appl. (OS) No. 30/2017, Ex. Appl. (OS) No.211/2017, Ex. Appl.
(OS) No.212/2017 530/2018, Ex. Appl. (OS) No.12/2018, Ex. Appl.
(OS) No.71/2018, Ex. Appl. (OS) No.530/2018 & Ex. Appl. (OS)
No.531/2018
1 The decree holder i.e. M/s J.K. Goyal Estate Developers Pvt.
Ltd., seeks execution of the purported Award dated 29.01.2013. One
of the main objections, which has been raised against the purported
Award, is that, it is not an Award as envisaged under the provisions
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short '1996 Act').
1.
1 This objection has been raised, in particular, by Mr. Singla,
learned Senior counsel, who appears in Ex. Appl. (OS) No.531/2018.
The said application has been filed by an entity known as M/s D.L.
Nagpal Finance and Leasing Company Private Limited.
2 The record shows that there are other objectors as well, these
being Canara Bank; UCO Bank; M/s Arora Buildwell Private Limited
and Mr. Kulbhushan Rai Bajaj in Ex. Appl. (OS) Nos. 71/2017;
30/2017; 575/2016 and 211/2017 respectively.
3 The record shows that on 15.03.2018, counsel for the parties
had agreed to the sale of an immovable property belonging to the
judgment debtor i.e. Ms. Balwant Kaur. This property, qua which
warrants of attachment have been issued, is described as: D-24, Saket,
New Delhi-110017 (in short 'Saket property').
3.1 The order dated 15.03.2018 is also indicative of the fact that
warrants of attachment vis-a-vis Saket property were issued on
30.05.2014.
3.2 The Court, based on the consent of counsel for the parties, as is
evident, appointed an Auctioneer as well. One, Mr. Bakshi
Tajeshwar Singh, Advocate, has been appointed as Court Auctioneer,
who is present in Court and says that pursuant to directions issued by
District Court at Tis Hazari and Saket, albeit, on the administrative
side he has been tasked with the work of carrying out public auction
of the Saket property. To be noted, nothing has been shown from the
record available before me which could establish that Mr. Bakshi
Tajeshwar has been assigned the work of carrying out the auction.
This may require gleaning information from the District Courts. The
Registry is directed to place a report in this regard before the Court
prior to the next date of hearing.
5 I am also informed that the matter is pending consideration
before the Mediator i.e. Mr. Jitender Vashisht, appointed by Delhi
High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
6 Pertinently, counsel for the parties continue to hold that
despite, perhaps, a legal lacuna in the Award dated 29.01.2013, the
best way forward would be to sell the Saket property and divide the
proceeds.
6.1 Clearly, in order to achieve this end parties will have to arrive
at a mediated settlement, failing which appropriate orders would have
to be passed in the instant proceedings.
7 I am also informed that the matter is coming up before the
Mediator tomorrow i.e. 12.12.2018.
8 Accordingly, the Mediator is directed to file his report before
the next date of hearing. Needless to say, in the proceeding before the
mediator the parties will place before the Mediator the original
documents, based on which the monetary claim is sought to be raised
by each one of them.
8.1 In case of Canara Bank, a copy of the Recovery Certificate (in
short 'RC') passed by the concerned Debts Recovery Tribunal (in
short 'DRT') should suffice.
9. The Mediator will look into the original documents and, then,
render a report before the Court in case a settlement is reached.
10 I may also indicate that the record shows that on 16.07.2018,
the Joint Registrar (Judicial) had triggered the process of auction qua
the Saket property. A perusal of the said order would show that
Canara Bank had filed a valuation report indicating that the Saket
property was worth Rs.11.61 crores and that the realisable value was
approximately Rs.9.30 crores.
11 It is made clear to all counsel that the auction process would
have to be recommenced, once, a mediated settlement is arrived at as
to the amounts that each of the contesting party before me would
claim. Therefore, the benchmark for arriving at a settlement, for the
moment, would be the estimated sum that perhaps may be realisable
i.e. Rs.9.30 crores. In case upon sale, the money realised is less or
more, proportionate haircut would have to be taken by each of the
contesting party.
12 Needless to say, parties and their counsel will appear before the
Mediator tomorrow.
13 I may also indicate that Mr. Singla says that as and when this
Court recommences the process of sale, his client i.e. M/s D.L.
Nagpal Finance Company Private Limited, will handover the
possession of the Saket property to the Court Auctioneer and that till
then, Mr. Singla's client will hold the Saket property as the custodian
of this Court.
13.1 Mr. Singla's statement is taken on record.
14 Accordingly, renotify the matter on 13.02.2019.
RAJIV SHAKDHER
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 11, 2018
A
