Delhi High Court
Maj. Gen. Manjit Singh Sandhiu & ... vs Splendor Buildwell Pvt Ltd. & Anr. on 21 October, 2021
$~10 & 11
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 21.10.2021
+ ARB.P. 981/2021
MAJ. GEN. MANJIT SINGH SANDHIU & ANR...... Petitioners
Through Mr.Siddhant Asthana & Mr.Siddhant
Nath, Advs.
versus
SPLENDOR BUILDWELL
PVT LTD. & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Pulkit Malhotra, Adv.
+ ARB.P. 983/2021
MUKESH TANEJA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr.Siddhant Asthana & Mr.Siddhant
Nath, Advs.
versus
SPLENDOR BUILDWELL
PVT LTD. & ANR. .....Respondents
Through Mr.Pulkit Malhotra, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (oral)
The hearing has been conducted through video conferencing.
1. Petitioner in the first captioned petition being [ARB.P.981/2021] is
Major General Manjit Singh Sandhu and Mrs. Deepak Sandhu and in the
second captioned petition being [ARB.P. 983/2021] is Mr. Mukesh Taneja
and Mr. Ranjan Jasuja who have preferred these petitions under the
provisions of Section 11 (6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for
appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
2. Since parties to the present petitions are similar and even the subject
matter of these petitions is more or less similar, therefore, with the consent
of counsel representing both the sides, these petitions have been heard
together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. According to the petitioner(s), respondents No.1 & 2 companies
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 who are said to be sister
concerns, entered into a Space Buyers Agreement and Memorandum of
Understanding dated 20.04.2016 in [ARB.P.981/2021]; Space Buyers
Agreement 01.08.2017 and Memorandum of Understanding dated
27.06.2017 in [ARB.P.983/2021]. The petitioner(s) claims to have paid
entire amount of Rs.20,87,400/ towards sales consideration with respect to
unit No.419 A, admeasuring super area of 500 sq.ft on the Fourth Floor of
Tower-B situated at Spectrum One, Sector-58 in the revenue estate of
Village Behrampur, Tehsil Sohna and District Gurgaon, Haryana (in
ARB.P.981/2021) and Rs.31,35,000/- towards sales consideration with
respect to unit No.323, admeasuring super area of 1000 sq.ft on the of
Tower B situated Spectrum One, Sector-58 in the revenue estate of Village
Behrampur, Tehsil Sohna and District Gurgaon, Haryana (in
ARB.P.983/2021).
4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that despite payment of entire
sale consideration and meeting the demands for payment so raised by the
respondents, the conveyance deed in favour of petitioners has not been
executed with respect to the said unit. The respondents sent a letter dated
07.01.2021 (in ARB.P.981/2021) and 04.01.2021 (in ARB.P.983/2021) to
the petitioners, raising frivolous pleas and fictitious claims under the
Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 and stated that under
the provisions of the said Act, the Memorandum of Understandings in
question stood terminated.
5. In such circumstances, petitioner filed petitions before District Courts
[OMP (I) (Comm.) 174/2021 in ARB.P.981/2021 & OMP (I) (Comm.)
190/2021 in ARB.P.983/2021], wherein the respondents agreed not to
alienate the unit subsequently allotted in the favour of the petitioners.
6. It is pleaded on behalf of the petitioners that petitioners vide Notices
dated 16.07.2021 (in ARB.P.981/2021) and 04.08.2021 (in
ARB.P.983/2021) invoked the arbitration clause and nominated Shri Rachit
Batra as the Sole Arbitrator and invited respondent to give confirmation to
the same. However, the respondents replied to the said notice of the
Petitioner (in ARB.P.981/2021) on 13.08.2021 and proposed its own sole
Arbitrator and in ARB.P.983/2021, respondents neither sent any
confirmation nor replied to the notice.
7. At the hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents
disputed the claims raised by the petitioner, however, very fairly conceded
that the disputes inter se parties can be resolved through arbitration and
prayed this Court that this Court may appoint sole Arbitrator.
8. This Court has heard the submissions advanced by both the sides.
9. Accordingly, Ms. Anita Sahni, Advocate (Mobile: 9810113256) is
appointed sole Arbitrator in these petitions to adjudicate the dispute between
the parties.
10. The fee of the learned Arbitrator shall be governed by the Fourth
Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
11. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
12. With aforesaid directions, the above captioned petitions are
accordingly disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
OCTOBER 21, 2021
ab
