SMTI BHABANI DAM AND ANR. Vs. DR. BIJIT RANJAN ACHARYYA AND 10 ORS.
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Smti Bhabani Dam And Anr.
Dr. Bijit Ranjan Acharyya And 10 Ors.
Click here to view full judgement.
PRASANTA KUMAR DEKA,J. -
(1.) Heard Mr. PK Roy Choudhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. D Mozumdar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. P Bora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) The present appeal is under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the impugned order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (FTC), Cachar in Misc. (Arb) Case No. 15/2016 rejecting the application filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the present appellants, as petitioners, for an interim injunction against the present respondents from disposing the suit property in favour of any person either by way of sale, gift etc. and from handing over possession of the schedule land to any person including any builder for the purpose of construction etc.
(3.) The present respondents are the owners in possession of a particular plot of land and with a view to develop the land by constructing RCC building thereon entered into a registered deed of agreement on 25.10.2013 with the present appellants as the second part. Along with the said agreement dated 25.10.2013 and irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 25.10.2013 was also executed by the respondents thereby authorising petitioners to take steps for construction of the building and to sell certain specific portion of such building along with undivided proportionate share of land. It is the contention of the present appellants that as per Clause 4 of the agreement, the respondents were required to deliver undisputed vacant physical possession of the land described in the said agreement in order to enable them to undertake the construction works. The respondents without complying the terms of the agreement by way of a revocation deed dated 04.02.2015 revoked authority to the present appellants which, as per the appellants, is illegal. The respondents also practised fraud upon the present appellants inasmuch as subsequent to the execution of the agreement, it was discovered that the respondents had filed Title Suit No. 696/2006 against one Supratim Dhar and others praying for declaration of their ownership, right, title and interest over the schedule mentioned land. The present appellants, as the plaintiffs, filed Title Suit No. 34/2015 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Cachar praying for a decree of declaration that the deed of revocation of power of attorney be cancelled. After the revocation of the said authority given to the appellants, the respondents started negotiation with some other persons/builders and planning to induct other persons to carry out constructions. In the said suit, an injunction application was also filed restraining the respondents from giving effect to the deed of revocation. The respondents entered appearance in the said suit and raised objection regarding the maintainability of the suit in view of the arbitration clause in the agreement dated 25.10.2013. Following the objection raised by the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the suit, the learned Civil Judge vide order dated 08.02.2016 dismissed the suit and referred the parties to the arbitral tribunal. After dismissal the respondents started vigorously to transfer the suit land to other builders and as such they sought for the relief mentioned hereinabove.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.