Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajiv Sharma vs M/S Ninex Developers Limited And Others on 24 October, 2024
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
KAMAL SHARMA
2024.10.29 11:33
ARB-32-2020 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(106+224)
ARB-32-2020 (O&M)
Date of decision:- 24.10.2024
Rajiv Sharma ... Petitioner
Versus
M/s Ninex Developers Limited and others ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Aditya Jain, Advocate and
Mr. Rahul Vohra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Vertika H. Singh, Advocate
for the applicant-respondent No.1.
WRK KG
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
CM-17204-ClIT-2024
1. Application is allowed as prayed for.
2. Amended Withdrawal Plan is taken on record as Annexure R-2.
3. Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate and Ms. Shruti Mandhotra, Advocate
have put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.2 to 4 and have filed
Power of Attorney, which is taken on record.
4. This is a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short "the Arbitration Act") read with the
Scheme of Appointment of Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of Punjab and
2. Petitioner and proforma respondents No.2 to 4 were owners of
land, measuring 1.89 acres (approximately), situated in the revenue estate of
authenticity of this order/judgment
KAMAL SHARMA
2024.10.29 11:33
ARB-32-2020 (O&M) -2-
village Silokhra, Tehsil & District Gurugram. They entered into two
separate Collaboration Agreements dated 21.10.2013 appended as Annexure
P-1 (Collectively), with respondent No.1 for the development of the land.
Respondent No.1 applied for and was issued a Letters of Intent dated
16.05.2016, Annexure P-3 (Colly), by the Department of Town and Country
Planning, Haryana, but did not carry out any development at the site.
6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a dispute arose between the
parties and the petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration
Act, which resulted in passing of order dated 15.01.2020, Annexure P-8,
whereby respondent No.1 was restrained from creating third party rights on
the land in question, till the matter is determined by the Arbitrator. In the
meanwhile, petitioner served a legal notice dated 25.09.2019, Annexure P-5,
invoking the Arbitration Clause and in the response sent by the Resolution
Professional on 16.10.2019, Annexure P-6, petitioner was intimated that the
company has gone into liquidation and there is an order of Moratorium
under Section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short "the
7. Upon notice by this Court, petition has been contested by counsel
for the respondent No.1, wherein reliance has been placed upon the
provisions of IBC and a stand has been taken as matter is pending before the
National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (for short "the NCLT"),
proceedings cannot initiated or continued against the Corporate
authenticity of this order/judgment
KAMAL SHARMA
2024.10.29 11:33
ARB-32-2020 (O&M) -3-
8. During the pendency of the instant petition, petitioner filed an
application and placed on record a copy of order dated 15.02.2024,
Annexure P-9, to submit that the proceedings initiated under the IBC have
culminated and the Corporate Debtor has been revived. It has been argued
by the counsel for the petitioner that now there is no obstacle in the
appointment of an Arbitrator. By referring to the stand taken in the
miscellaneous application, counsel for respondent no.1 has urged that in
terms of the Amended Withdrawal Plan, Annexure R-2, the petition for
appointment of an Arbitrator has to be kept in abeyance till the time the
revival plan is given effect to. It is also her argument that as the petitioner
has failed to approach the Resolution Professional, the claim is deemed to
have been extinguished. Counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 has supported
the prayer made in the petition.
9. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
10. The Collaboration Agreement between the parties, the Arbitration
Clause as well as the notice invoking the Arbitration are not disputed. From
the narration of facts given by the parties, it is apparent that a dispute exists
between them. The only hindrance in the appointment of an Arbitrator was
the pendency of the proceeding under Section 14 of the IBC before the
NCLT, which has now culminated with the passing of order, Annexure P-9.
In so far as the arguments raised by counsel for respondent No.1 are
concerned, they can all be taken care of by the Arbitrator. This Court,
therefore, does not have any hesitation in accepting the prayer made in the
authenticity of this order/judgment
KAMAL SHARMA
2024.10.29 11:33
ARB-32-2020 (O&M) -4-
11. Accordingly, petition is allowed. Sh. Suresh Kumar Monga,
Former Member (Judicial), Central Administrative Tribunal, resident of #
0901, N-Block, Wellington Heights, TDI City, Sector 117, Mohali, Mobile
No. 9814106356, is nominated as an Arbitrator to resolve the dispute
between the parties, subject to declaration to be made by him under Section
12 of the Act with regard to his independence and impartiality to adjudicate
the dispute.
12. Parties are directed to appear before the Arbitrator on 12.12.2024,
at 11:00 A.M., at the address mentioned above or at any other place, time or
day to be fixed by the learned Arbitrator.
13. Fee shall be paid to the Arbitrator in accordance with the Fourth
Schedule of the Arbitration Act, as amended.
14. Learned Arbitrator is requested to complete the proceedings as per
time limit specified under Section 29-A of the Arbitration Act.
15. Parties will be at liberty to raise all the all the claims, counter
claims, defences, pleas etc. before the Arbitrator.
16. Needless to mention that all the questions arising between them in
this matter shall remain open for determination in the arbitral proceedings
and any observation made hereinabove will not be binding on the learned
Arbitrator.
17. A copy of this order be sent to the nominated Arbitrator.
18. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
24.10.2024 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
