DALMIA INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD v. MVL LTD

1. Dalmia Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., the petitioner, has filed the abovementioned twelve petitions against MVL Ltd., the respondent herein. The first petition being OMP No.407/20 12 has been filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the following reliefs:-

2. "(a) Stay the cancellation/operation of the respondent's purpOlied letter of cancellation dated 2nd April, 2012 purporting to cancel the 11 apartments purchased by the petitioner in the Tower-2 of residential complex known as "MVL Coral" situated on the Bhiwadi-Alwar bypass in Village Saidpur, Tehsil Tizara, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan detailed in Annexure-PI0 hereto and which fonn part of Annexure-II to the petitioner's letter dated lih January, 2010. (b) Restr'ain the respondent, its agents, representatives, employees or any other person claiming through it £i'om directly or indirectly transfelTing, alienating, encumbering or dealing in any manner or parting with possession of the 11 aparhnents purchased by the petitioner in the Tower-2 of residential complex known as "MVL Coral" situated on the Bhiwadi-Alwar bypass in Village Saidpur, Tehsil Tizara, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan detailed in Annexure-PIO hereto and which fOim pati of Annexure-II to the petitioner's letter dated lih Januaty, 2010." The said OMP was first time listed before Comi on 30th April, 2012 when the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent sought time to take the instructions from his client. On the next date, i.e. 2 nd May, 2012, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, 011 OMP,VoA07']O1] & 1101's. Fage 5 of 7 ·. I.! b instlUctions, made the statement recorded III the order. reproduced here as under:-.[1] The same IS "1. Mr.Anil K. Kher, Senior Advocate, on instmctions from Mr.D.R.Bhatia, Advocate, enters appears on behalf of the respondent. Mr.Anil K. Kher on instlUctions velY fair submits that the respondent will not sell, alienate, transfer, encumber or deal in any manner or PaIt with possession of the eleven apartments purchased by the petitioner in Tower-2 of residential complex known as "MVL Coral", situated on the Bhiwadi-Alwar bypass in Village Saidpur, Tehsil TizaI'a, District Alwar, Rajasthan, till the next date of hearing. Respondent shall be bound by the statement made by senior counsel in Com[1] t d " o ay....

3. The other II petitions being Arb.P.Nos.433/2012 & 125-34/2013 have been filed by the petitioner under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of a sole Arbitrator under Clause 13 of the Agreements executed between the parties, for adjudicating the disputes that have aI'isen between them.

4. I have been infonned that Justice 1.P.Singh, a retired Judge of this Com[1] has already been appointed as an Arbitrator in certain connected matters between the parties. It is so recorded in the order dated lih December, 2012 passed in Arb.P.No.433/2012 on which date, the leamed counsel for the respondent also sought time to obtain the instlUctions from his client for reference of the dispute to the SaIne Arbitrator. On the next date, i.e. 15 th JanuaIY, 2013, as agreed, the matter was sent to the Delhi High Com[1] Mediation and Conciliation Centre for settlement. However, the mediation ended as a 'Non-Starter', as per the report ofthe leamed Mediator dated 25th FeblUaty, 2013. Both the matters being OMP No.407/2012 & Arb.P.No.433/2012 were heard and were re-notified for orders for today. As OAIP,\'o.·/{}7 ]0]] & 11 Ors. Page 60{7,. ( the respondent raised the objection about the maintainability of the petition mainly on the ground that since there are independent agreements with regard to the suit properties, the petitioner ought to have filed the separate petitions, hence today, the 10 other petitions being Arb.P.Nos.125-34/2013 between the same parties are listed which have been filed by the petitioner.

5. After small hearing, learned counsel for both the parties are agreeable that all the petitions mentioned above may be disposed of with following directions; the same are accordingly passed:- (a) Mr.J.P.Singh, a retired Judge of this Court, who has already been appointed as sole Arbitrator in connected matters between the patties, is also appointed as sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon all the disputes and differences between the parties as mentioned in the petitions being Arb.P.Nos.433/20 12 & 125-34/2013, including their claims and counter-claims. The arbitration be taken place under the aegis of Rules of the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre. The fees of the Arbitrator be also paid under the said Rules. (b)The statement made on behalf of the respondent on 2nd May, 20] 2 in OMP No.407/2012 shall continue until it is modified or vacated by the sole Arbitrator by filing of the application which would be decided as per its own merits.

6. All petitions are disposed of No costs.

7. Copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the patties and a communication be also sent to the leatned sole Arbitrator. (~~1H#GH) \ JUDGE MARCH 22, 2013