COGENT VENTURES (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. S K MARWAH
LAWS(DLH)-2007-10-386
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on October 09,2007

COGENT VENTURES (INDIA) LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
S K MARWAH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) These are two petitions filed by the petitioner against the respondent. One is under Section 9 and the other is under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Both these petitions are proposed to be decided by this common judgment because question of facts and law involved in them are identical.
(2.) The factual matrix of the case giving rise to these petitions is as follows:- The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. Mr. Santosh Kumar is the Chairman and Director of the said company. In November, 2003, the respondent agreed to sell his agricultural land bearing Khasra No. 811, House No. 4, known as ESSEL MINI FARM measuring 1029 sq. yds. situated at Village Chattarpur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi at a rate of Rs. 5251.00 per sq. yds. for a total consideration of Rs. 54,03,279.00 to Mr. Santosh Kumar. An amount of Rs. 5,40,000/- received by the respondent under the Agreement signed by the respondent with said Mr. Santosh Kumar of the petitioner company on 10.11.2003 vide cheque No. 707240 dated 08.11.2003 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Yusuf Sarai Branch, New Delhi. Under the Agreement the vendee Mr. Santosh Kumar was required to pay the balance sale consideration of Rs. 48,62,279.00 by 15.02.2004 as stipulated in the said Agreement. Because of alleged breach on the part of the vendee in not pursuing the transaction any further, the respondent being the vendor returned the deposit of Rs. 5,40,000.00 received by him as earnest money from the vendee and this amount was returned vide Cheque No. 957850 dated 18.08.2004 sent to the vendee vide covering letter dated 16/18.08.2004 (Annexure 'A' to the respondent's application under Section 151 CPC being IA No. 6514/2004 in OMP No. 279/2004). At this point of time, disputes and differences arose between the parties under the Agreement to Sell dated 10.11.2003. The said Agreement to Sell contained an Arbitration Clause being Clause No. 10 whereby the parties had agreed to get their disputes under the Agreement resolved by a panel of Arbitrators, one to be appointed by each one of them. Arbitration was to be governed by the provisions of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Clause 10 of the Agreement read as under:- "That in the event of any dispute arising between the parties with regard to the applicability of interpretation of any of the terms and conditions of this MOU, then such dispute would be resolved by way of arbitration. Both the parties shall have the right to appoint one Arbitrator each. And the award given by these two Arbitrator shall be binding on both the parties. Such arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The courts at Delhi shall have the jurisdiction in the event of any dispute."
(3.) On or around 23.08.2004, the petitioner filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for ad interim injunction restraining the respondent from alienating or creating any third party right/charge in the subject property agreed to be sold vide above referred Agreement to Sell dated 10.11.2003. This Court vide its interim order passed on 31.08.2004 in OMP No. 279/2004 restrained the respondent from selling, disposing of or transferring the suit property in favour of any third person subject to the petitioner's depositing the balance sale consideration in the Court within two weeks. This interim order was modified vide order dated 25.10.2004 to the extent that subject to the petitioner's depositing a sum of Rs. 25 lacs in the Court within two weeks, the respondent would stand restrained from selling, disposing of or transferring the suit property in favour of any third person. This amount of Rs. 25 lacs was not deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated time period of two weeks mentioned in the order dated 25.10.2004 The time for depositing the said amount was extended till 16.11.2004 without prejudice to the rights of the parties vide order passed on 08.11.2004 In compliance of the aforementioned orders, the petitioner deposited a cheque of Rs. 25 lacs with the Court on 15.11.2004 However, the said cheque deposited by the petitioner in the Court was received back unpaid from the Reserve Bank of India with the objection 'Funds insufficient' and a report in this regard was made by the Registry to the Court which was taken on record vide order dated 19.01.2005. Thereafter the proceedings in OMP No. 279/2004 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 continued to be adjourned from time to time till the matter was finally heard along with the connected petition under Section 11 (6) of the said Act on 03.10.2007.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.