Full Text
Translation output
$-16 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
FAO(OS) 473/2013
DEEPAK KAURMANN Appellant
Through: Mr H, S. Phoolka, Sr. Advocate alongwith Ms Prabhsahay Kaur and
Mr Suryadeep Singh, Advocates.
FAO(OS) 473/2013
DEEPAK KAURMANN Appellant
Through: Mr H, S. Phoolka, Sr. Advocate alongwith Ms Prabhsahay Kaur and
Mr Suryadeep Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
SOMDATTBUILDERS(P) LTD AND ORS Respondents
Through: Mr Rajesh Yadav and Mr Rajesh Bhardwaj, Advocates.
Through: Mr Rajesh Yadav and Mr Rajesh Bhardwaj, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
23.10.2013 CM No.16573-74/2013 (Exemptions)
The exemptions are allowed subject to all just exception.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
23.10.2013 CM No.16573-74/2013 (Exemptions)
The exemptions are allowed subject to all just exception.
CAV.931/2013
The learned counsel for the caveator/respondent is present. The caveat stands discharged.
The learned counsel for the caveator/respondent is present. The caveat stands discharged.
FAO(OS) 473/2013
This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.09.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in lA No.14693/2013 filed by the appellant seeking clarification of the orders dated 16.04.2010 and
16.02.2012. Both the orders were passed in OMP No.207/2010. The order dated 16.04.2010 is the ordergranting status quo. Subsequently, in the order dated 16.02.2012, the statement of the counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 was recorded to the effect that the said respondents would not sell, alienate, transfer or part with the possession of the property bearing no.5, Jantar
2013:DHC:6997-DB Mantar Road, New Delhi without prior permission of the Court. After recording the said statement, the OMP No.207/2010 was disposed of.
Thereafter, the present appellant (Mrs Deepak Kaur) filed an application for impleadment in OMP No.327/2010 which was a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The impleadment application was rejected by an order dated 24.07.2013 in the following manner:-
This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.09.2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in lA No.14693/2013 filed by the appellant seeking clarification of the orders dated 16.04.2010 and
16.02.2012. Both the orders were passed in OMP No.207/2010. The order dated 16.04.2010 is the ordergranting status quo. Subsequently, in the order dated 16.02.2012, the statement of the counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 was recorded to the effect that the said respondents would not sell, alienate, transfer or part with the possession of the property bearing no.5, Jantar
2013:DHC:6997-DB Mantar Road, New Delhi without prior permission of the Court. After recording the said statement, the OMP No.207/2010 was disposed of.
Thereafter, the present appellant (Mrs Deepak Kaur) filed an application for impleadment in OMP No.327/2010 which was a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The impleadment application was rejected by an order dated 24.07.2013 in the following manner:-
"9. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties, I tend to agree with the submission of Mr Yadav. Merely because the applicant has acquired an undivided share in the Jantar Mantar property, cannot be the basis for impleadment to the present proceeding since the applicant was not a party to the arbitration agreement. Therefore, the prayer of the applicant is declined. Needless to say if the award is sustained and if there are any other remedies available to the applicant at the stage of execution, the applicant will take recourse to the same, at that stage."
The said OMP No.327/2010. is pending before the learned Single
Judge.
Thereafter, the appellant filed the said lA No. 14693/2013 seeking clarification of the orders dated 16.04.2010 and 16.02.2012 to the effect that she would not be bound by the statement made by the learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 which has been referred to above. The said application was rejected by the learned Single Judge by virtue of the impugned order solely on the ground that such an application could not be filed in a disposed of petition. Mr Phoolka, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that since the appellant was not a party in OMP No.207/2010, the orders passed therein would not bind the appellant. He also submitted that the appellant is also not a party in the arbitration proceedings. Hehadsought clarification only to this extent.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent no.l, who is present on caveat, submits that no further clarification was at all necessary in view of the observations of the learned Single Judge in the order dated
24.07.2013, which has been referred to above. Apart from that, the learned counsel for respondent no.l also submits that the appellant is claiming a share in the subject property on the basis of a decree passed in a suit for partition which was filed subsequent to the stay order dated 16.04.2010.
According to the learned counsel for respondent no.l, the said suit was a collusive one between the appellant andrespondent nos.2 to 4.
We need not go into these aspects of the matter inasmuch as we feel that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the application of the appellant inasmuch as the same could not have been entertained in a disposed ofpetition in which the appellant was not even a party.
The appeal stands disposed of BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 23, 2013 MK
Judge.
Thereafter, the appellant filed the said lA No. 14693/2013 seeking clarification of the orders dated 16.04.2010 and 16.02.2012 to the effect that she would not be bound by the statement made by the learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 which has been referred to above. The said application was rejected by the learned Single Judge by virtue of the impugned order solely on the ground that such an application could not be filed in a disposed of petition. Mr Phoolka, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that since the appellant was not a party in OMP No.207/2010, the orders passed therein would not bind the appellant. He also submitted that the appellant is also not a party in the arbitration proceedings. Hehadsought clarification only to this extent.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent no.l, who is present on caveat, submits that no further clarification was at all necessary in view of the observations of the learned Single Judge in the order dated
24.07.2013, which has been referred to above. Apart from that, the learned counsel for respondent no.l also submits that the appellant is claiming a share in the subject property on the basis of a decree passed in a suit for partition which was filed subsequent to the stay order dated 16.04.2010.
According to the learned counsel for respondent no.l, the said suit was a collusive one between the appellant andrespondent nos.2 to 4.
We need not go into these aspects of the matter inasmuch as we feel that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the application of the appellant inasmuch as the same could not have been entertained in a disposed ofpetition in which the appellant was not even a party.
The appeal stands disposed of BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
VIBHU BAKHRU, J OCTOBER 23, 2013 MK
JUDGMENT