Petitioner challenged an Arbitral Award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996, alleging an independent transaction for land secured the balance sale consideration of a shop. The Court held the finding on fact was for the Arbitrator and dismissed the petition.
Petition dismissed with no order as to cost.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~4
versus
DAYANAND & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sandeep Sharma, Ms.Kanika Mitra and Mr.Aman Dhyani, Advs. for R-1. Mr.Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
O R D E R % 04.02.2019
Rs.21 lacs as a One Time Settlement.
“It is clear that various documents including agreement to sell (Exhibit RW-1/1) as well as the possession letter (Exhibit RW-1/9) was executed by the plaintiff on 29.03.2004 in favour of the defendant no.1 Sh. Dayanand in respect of the property F-27 A, Shankar Market, Central Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi (the suit property).
On the same date 29.03.2004 a will and GPA was executed by defendant no.2 in favour of the Plaintiff with regard to land measuring 5000 sq. yards at Khasra No.20/ 10 (2-A), 20/11 (212), Khera Dabar Village, New Delhi which the plaintiff claims was got executed by the Defendant no. 1 from the Defendant No.2 for clearance of the dues and for the balance consideration of Rs.1.04 Crore as the Defendant no. 1 was short of funds and the same was got executed for a short period till the Balance funds were arranged.
Thereafter on 07.05.2004 first complaint was filed by the Plaintiff with the P.S. Connaught Place and thereafter further complaints on 14.02.2005 and 25.11.2004 with regard to the threat to his life and to the life of his family members alongwith various other allegations against the others.
The allegations were found to be incorrect on investigation vide report dated 26.05.2005 at pages 38 to 52 of the documents filed by the Respondents and placed in the File "Documents filed by the parties ".
Thereafter in a case under Section 145 Cr.P.C. the Executive Magistrate held that the testimony of the Complainant remained totally uncorroborated and also does not inspire confidence and as such cannot be relied upon. He further held that Sh. Dayanand, Respondent of party no.2 is in possession of property no. F-27 A, Shankar Market, Central Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi and entitled to retain such possession until ousted by clue course of law and do strictly forbid disturbance of his possession in the meantime (Exhibit RW-1/20). Even in the Revision Petition the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge held that the Defendant no.1 came in possession of the property peacefully and the Revisionist cannot be permitted to say that the Respondent forcefully dispossessed him and concurred with the findings of the Executive Magistrate (Exhibit RW -1/21 ).
Otherwise also in between 29.03.2004 and the filing of the first complaint on 07.05.2004 with the P.S. Connaught Place no action was taken by the plaintiff.
From the Agreement to sell (Exhibit RW-1/1) it is clear that the consideration amount for the property no. F-27 A, Shankar Market, Central Market, Connaught Place, New Delhi was Rs.21 lakhs which was paid by the defendant no. I directly to the bank in the loan account of the plaintiff to get the clearance of the property from the Bank for sale.
xxxx
There is nothing on record to suggest that the execution of the GPA and Will with regard to the Khera Dabar property, which was later on revoked/cancelled by defendant no.2 was linked with the transaction with regard to the Shankar Market property.
The defendants have also placed on record the certified copy(ies) of other sale deed(s) executed with regard to the properties in the surrounding area of Shankar Market (Exhibit RW-1/23 (Colly)), which go to show that the prevalent rate at that time was the same as the consideration amount mentioned in the Agreement to sell (Exhibit RW-1/1).
Considering all the material on record, I am of the view that the two transactions i.e. of Shankar market and Khera Dabar are independent of each other and the total sale consideration of the Shankar Market property could not have been more than Rs.21 lakhs.”
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 04, 2019/Arya
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should re-appreciate evidence as a Court of Appeal regarding the independence of two property transactions.
Whether the Arbitrator's finding on the scope of the arbitral award deserves interference under Section 34 of the Act.
Whether the petitioner's claim of a composite transaction linking the shop sale and land transaction succeeds.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KISHAN KUMAR KATHPAL
DAYANAND
SANTOSHI DAUTORIA
NAVIN CHAWLA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
