Arun Anand vs Ravi Oberoi & Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 24 HP

                                                      1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
                              SHIMLA

                                         Arbitration Case No.18 of 2006 alongwith




                                                                                .
                                         Arbitration Case No.19 of 2006





                                         Date of Decision: January 1, 2021





    1.        Arbitration Case No.18 of 2006

    Arun Anand                                                                      ...Petitioner.

                                                  Versus





    Ravi Oberoi & others                                                        ..Respondents.
    2.   Arbitration Case No.19 of 2006

    Paramjit Singh & others                                                         ...Petitioners.


                                                  Versus

    Ravi Oberoi & others                                                        ..Respondents.
    Coram:


    The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?1
    For the Petitioners:                 Mr.Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate,




                                         alongwith Mr.Anirudh Sharma, Advocate,
                                         vice Ms.Devyani Sharma, Advocate,





                                         through Video Conferencing.

    For the Respondents:                 Mr. Dushyant Dadwal and Mr.Subhash
                                         Chander, Advocates, for respondents





                                         No.1 to 8 in both petitions, through Video
                                         Conferencing.

                                         None for respondents No.9 to 12 in
                                         Arbitration Case No.18 of 2006 and none
                                         for respondent Nos.9, 11 and 12 in
                                         Arbitration Case No.19 of 2006.

                                         Mr. Ashok Sood, Senior Advocate,
                                         alongwith Mr.Khem Raj, Advocate, for
                                         respondent No.13 in Arbitration Case
                                         No.18 of 2006 and for respondent No.10
                                         in Arbitration Case No.19 of 2006.
    1
        Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?




                                                             ::: Downloaded on - 02/01/2021 20:15:28 :::HCHP
                                      2



                            Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate,
                            alongwith Ms.Anaida Kuthiala, Advocate,
                            for respondent No.16 in Arbitration Case
                            No.18 of 2006 and for respondent No.13
                            in Arbitration Case No.19 of 2006.




                                                             .

    Vivek Singh Thakur, J (Oral)

It is submitted by learned counsel for the parties that

dispute in both petitions has been settled between the parties

and Anil Kumar respondent No.2 in both petitions, who is present

to depose on behalf of all contesting respondents, is having

authorization of respondents Ravi Oberoi, Madhu Oberoi, Rahul

Oberoi and Nitin Oberoi and Special Power of Attorney(s) of

respondents Sunila Malik, Vijay Oberoi and Sandip Chadda. His

statement on oath has been recorded separately, whereby he

has endorsed the settlement and has received two Demand

Drafts/Manager's Cheques dated 09.11.2020 bearing No.082187

and 18.11.2020 bearing No.082223 worth `8,00,000/- each

payable to him to be drawn in HDFC Bank, in terms of

compromise. Authorizations, Special Power of Attorney(s) and

compromise deed have been placed by him on record in original.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also endorsed

the settlement and has prayed for disposing of the petitions as

compromised.

3. Accordingly, present petitions are closed as

compromised, in terms of compromise deed placed on record

and as per deposition of Anil Oberoi and learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners, which shall be part of this order.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of,

in aforesaid terms alongwith main petitions.

(Vivek Singh Thakur),

.

Judge.

    January 1, 2021
          (Purohit)





                         r      to