Subhash Arora v. Manmohan Singh

1. N4r. Subhash Arora has filed OMP No.' 514 of 2012 under Section 9 of the fu'bitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act') stating that he entered into an agreement to sell with the Respondent Mr. Manmohan Singh on 17th May 2010 whereby Mr. Manmohan Singh had agreed to sell the property bearing No. E-334, East of Kailash, New Delhi ('the properly in question') for a consideration of Rs.

8.50 crores. Thereafter, on 1lth June 2010 a formal agreetnent was entered into and the Petitioner paid the Respondent a sum of Rs. 1 crore. The agreement to sell contained an arbitration clause.

2. Xdr. Varun Ajmani has filed OMP No. 533 of 2012 under Section 9 of the Act stating he entered into an agreement to sell with Mr. Manmohan Singh on 2nd Decernber 2011 whereby Mr. Manmohan Singh had agreed to sell the property in question for a sale consideration of Rs. 9 crores and the Petitioner paid IW. Singh a sum of Rs. 2 crores. The agreement to sell contained an arbitration clause.

3. It is the case of both Mr. Subhash Arora and Mr. Ajmani that the Respondent OMP Nos. 514 otrd 533 of 2012 tl,' has been avoiding the execution of the sale deed. Mr. Arora avers that he recently noted the demolition activities at the site. In the circumstances, the present petitions were filed on 26th May 2012 and 3l't May 2012 respectively seeking to restrain the Respondent from demolishing/constructing or creating any third parfy rights in respect of the property in question.

4. While directing notice to issue on 28th May 2012 in OMP No.514'of 2012 this Courl passed an interirn order restraining the Respondent from demolishing/constructing or creating any third party rights of any kind whatsoever in respect of the property in question. A similar interim order was passed in OMP NO. 533 of 2012 on 6'h June 2012.

5. I.A. No. I 1476 of 2012 and IA No. 11558 of 2012 were filed by Mr. Kewal I(-ishan Pandit, husband of late Smt. Kailashwanti Pandit in OMP No. 514 of 2012 claiming that Smt. Kailashwanti Pandit is the recorded owner of the property in question, and that the interim order should, therefore, be vacated to permit the Applicant to carry on with the construction work at the site. Enclosed with the said application are the documents which show inter alia that the electricity and the telephone bills were in the name of the Applicant and that mutation has been OMP Nos.514 uttd 533 of 2012 Page[3] of[7] l,> granted by the Delhi Development Authority ('DDA') in favour of late Smt. Kailashwanti Pandit, wife of the applicant by execution of a conveyance deed.

6. In OMP No. 514 of 2012 Mr. Kewal Kishan Pandit filed a further application being I.A No. No. 11560 of 2012 for directions to the policb to stop misconstruing the interim orders passed by this Court.

7. On8tl' June 20L[2] this Court passed an interim order directing the Station House Officer ('SHO'), Amar Colony,.New Delhi to examine the grievance of N4r. Pandit and not obstruct him fiom carrying on the construction in case IMr. Pandit was shown to be the owner of the property in question.

8. An incomplete report was submitted by the SHO, Amar Colony, New Delhi on 3'd July 2012. Accordingly he was directed to submit a further detailed report.

9. The subsequent report filed today in Court by the SHO, Amar Colony, encloses the clarification received frorn the DDA and a copy of a letter dated 20th December 2001 addressed by the DDA to late Smt. Kailashwanti, wife of Mr. Kewal Krishan stating as under: "Consequent upon your representation on the cancellation of mutation on 9th October 1991 which was earlier allowed in your OMP Nos. 514 and 533 of 2012 favour, the competent authority (Hon'ble LG) allowed the mutation of the plot No. 334, Block-E in East of Kailash Residential Scheme in the narne of Smt. Kailash, being the wife of Sh. Kewal Kishan. Now onwards you are the lessee/mutatee of the plot No. 334 Block E in East of Kailash Residential Scheme. The other terms and conditions of the allotment/lease deed shall remain unchanged and binding upon you. Please note that'if at any later stage it is found that the documents furnished by you and other legal heirs are false or misrepresented then it will be treated as a case of concealment of facts and mutation so allowed, shall be treated, as cancelled/withdrawn and the propefty, shall vest with the Lessor." t)

10. Ms. Maldeep Sidhu, learned counsel for the Applicant Mr. Pandit has produced before the Court an internal noting of the DDA dated 25th June 2012 in which it is statcd as under: "The matter was placed before Hon'ble LG recommending determination of lease deed owing to under hand sale and rnisuse in property. While deciding the case Hon'ble LG Delhi viewed that while it is true that the earlier mutation in the name of Smt. Kailash was allowed on the basis of false documents, it seems equally true that Shri Didar Singh had sold the properfy through GPA and Agreement to Sell. Thus Hon'ble LG Delhi vide his minutes dated 26tr' June 2000 issued orders to allow mutation in favour of Smt. Kailash on payment of UEI at the rate prevailing in 1972 with 18% up to date interest. He also allowed to process conversion to freehold as per guidelines on the subject (P-92-9340, as per order of Hon'ble LG Delhi, the mutation as well as conversion was allowed after completion <if codal formalities and recovery of dues."

11. It was vehemently contended by Mr. Vineet Malhotra, leatned counsel for the OMP Nos. 514 und 533 of 2012 Poge 5 of 7 \u )\ -/ Petitioner IMr. Subash Arora in OMP No. 514 of 2012 and Mr. Imran Ali, leamed counsel for Mr. Ajmani that the Petitioners should be given one more opportunity to produce documents to show that the mutation by the DDA of the property in question in the name of Smt. Kailashwanti Pandit was illegal.

12. This Court is, in the present proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, not called upon to express any view on the validity of the mutation in favour of late Smt. Kailashwanti Pandit. The Court is simply going by the report of the SHO enclosing a copy of the communication received from the DDA, which encloses copies of the relevant documents which show that, as a matter of fact, the property in quesiion as of date stands mutated in the name of late Smt. Kailashwanti Pandit. Consequently, this Court is of the view that neither of the Petitioners have made out a primafacie case for grant of any interim relief. The Court leaves open all the contentions regarding the right, title and interest in the property in question of any of the partids, including the Applicant in IA Nos. 11476 and 11560 of 2012, to be agitated in other appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. The interim orders passed in both OMP Nos. 514 and 533 of 2012 are hereby vacated.

13. OMP Nos. 514 and 533 of 2012 are dismissed. IA Nos. It476, 11558, 11560, OMP Nos.5I[4] and 533 of 2012 !:-, -,8+. '.. / II[7] 60 and I I77 5 of 2012 are disposed of in the above terms. crt M.A. Nos. 12625 and 12358 0f 2012 (u/Section 340 CrPC)

14. In view of the above order, no order is called for in these applications and they are disposed of as such. [,..h \_/ S. MURALIDHAR, J AUGUST OI,2OI[2] Rkt K Page 7 of.[7]