Disposed

Vijendra Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2018WRIC/33997/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of a recovery citation. Instead, it disposed of the matter with liberty to the petitioners to invoke the arbitration clause of the agreement, directing the State Government to appoint an arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of the writ petition with liberty to invoke the arbitration clause-7 of the agreement; State Government to appoint an arbitrator.

Vijendra Kumar Sharma and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Arbitration | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33997 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Vijendra Kumar Sharma And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikrant Rana,Anoop Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhupeshwar Dayal

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi assisted by Sri Vikrant Rana, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Bhupeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4.

¶6

The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking quashing of the recovery citation dated 12.09.2018 and 01.09.2018.

¶7

The contention of the petitioners is that they are partners of M/s Shalimar Colonizer. They submitted a map for sanctioning in respect of a proposed residential colony namely Gokul Vihar Colony, Aurangshahpur, Rohta Road, District Meerut before the Meerut Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'Authority'). It is stated that the map submitted by the petitioner was sanctioned on 15.09.2003 being Map No.17/2002. As per the requirements of Section 15 of the U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973, the petitioners fulfilled all the formalities and also thereafter entered into an agreement with the Authority. On 15.09.2003, they also submitted a bank guarantee of Rs.27,65,950/- as guarantee bond for the internal development work of the land covered by the map. The agreement was executed on 15.09.2003 between the M/s Shalimar Colonizer and the Authority, and, Gokul Vihar Colony was developed and plots

¶8

¶9

were sold to a number of persons through proper sale deeds. It is stated that after the completion of work, the bank guarantee submitted by the petitioners were also released in their favour for the amount of Rs.27,65,950/-. It is stated that the petitioners through a letter dated 11.02.2008 intimated the Authority that the development work had been completed and, therefore, a completion certificate be issued but no completion certificate has been issued till date. The submission is that under Section 15A of the Act, 1973, if the completion certificate is not issued within three months, it shall be deemed that a completion certificate has been granted by the Authority. The cause of action arose to the petitioners when a demand notice for recovery of an amount of Rs.45,38,703.66 was issued to the petitioners on the ground that internal work had not been completed as per the map.

¶10

Sri Bhupeshwal Dayal, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 submits that in terms of the agreement between the parties, there is a provision for arbitration under clause-7 of the agreement and this is not disputed by Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶11

A similar matter came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.12296 of 2018 (Ishwar Pal and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and that writ petition was ultimately disposed of by order dated 04.04.2018 with liberty to the petitioners to invoke the arbitration clause-7 and if such an arbitration clause is invoked by the petitioners, it shall be the obligation of the State Government to forthwith appoint an Arbitrator, who shall be empowered to look into the grievances as raised by the petitioners and pass an appropriate order in

¶12

¶13

accordance with law. The judgment of the Division Bench dated 04.04.2018 passed in the case of Ishwar Pal (supra) was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.23132 of 2018 (M/s Gayatri Project vs. State of U.P. and 3 others).

¶14

With the consent of the parties, we, therefore, dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to invoke the arbitration clause-7 of the agreement. If the petitioners invoke the arbitration clause-7 of the agreement, it will be the obligation of the State Government to refer the matter to Arbitrator who shall decide the questions under reference in accordance with law. The amount sought to be recovered by the respondent-Authority will be subject to any award, which may be made by the Arbitrator. Order Date :- 09.10.2018 NLY

Vijendra Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Kumar Sharma and Another v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandra Shekhar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Kuber Vs State of U P and Another

Smt.Jai Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajmani Thakur Vs Sub-Division Magistrate and 2 Others

Smt.Vimlesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nasir Hussain Vs Debts Recovery Tribunal and 2 Others