Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
EMAAR INDIA LIMITED
(FORMERLY EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED) ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. and Mr. Ciccu Mukhopadhyaya, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Vikram Sobti, Mr. Mehul Parti, Mr. Ashwani Malhotra and Mr. Adil Vasudeva, Advs.
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. along with Ms. Pooja M. Saigal, Mr. Yudhister Singh, Mr. Simrat Singh
Pasay, Ms. Tanya Pandey and Mr. Abhay Singla, Advs. for Mr. Rakshit Jain in IA No.7896/2023 and IA No.
14881/2022.
Mr. Mohit Jolly, Adv. (through VC)
Factual Background
1. The present petition i.e. O.M.P. 135/2010 was filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 being aggrieved by the alleged illegal termination notice dated 02.03.2010 issued by the respondent no.1 in respect of the Collaboration Agreement dated 21.08.2006 executed between the petitioner and the respondents. The prayers sought in the petition were as under: “a. pass an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner and against respondent no.1 staying the termination notice dated 02.03.2010 and restraining respondent no. 1 from taking any steps pursuant to the said letter of termination, till the passing of the arbitral award in the arbitration proceedings; b. pass an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, restraining the respondents or any person claiming through or under them from in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly acting in breach of the Collaboration Agreement or from creating any third party rights in the Project Land or from parting with possession of the Project Land in favour of any third party, till the passing of the arbitral award in the arbitration proceedings; c. pass an order of injunction in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents, restraining the respondents or any person claiming through or under them from in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, dealing with the Project Land or from entering into any kind of agreement / arrangement with any third party in relation to or in connection with the Project Land, till the passing of the arbitral award in the arbitration proceedings; d. appoint a local commission to visit the Project Land and to submit his report to this Hon'ble Court with respect to the status of possession thereof; e. pass ad interim ex-parte orders in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and
(d) above in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents; f. grant costs of the present proceedings and of those incidental thereto in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.”
2. Vide order dated 05.03.2010, the respondents were directed to maintain the status quo with regard to the title and possession of the land covered by the aforesaid agreement dated 21.08.2006.
3. Vide order dated 12.05.2010, it was recorded, inter-alia, as under: “It is agreed between the parties that the title deed with respect to 49 acres of land mentioned in Schedule 3 of the Agreement shall be deposited in a locker of a nationalized bank in New Delhi. The said locker shall be operated jointly by both the parties. In case any of the parties wants to access the title deed, prior leave of this Court will be sought.”
4. The present petition [O.M.P. 135/2010] itself was disposed of vide order dated 27.09.2010 taking note of the fact that the arbitration proceedings between the parties were underway.
5. The arbitration proceedings between the parties are now stated to be at an advanced stage and on the verge of culmination.
6. In view of the aforesaid order/directions of this Court, regarding deposit of title deeds/documents of the project land in question in a bank locker, the said title deeds came to be eventually deposited in a locker at the State Bank of India, Parliament Street branch. The said bank locker was directed to be jointly operated by Mr. Rakshit Jain, Authorized Representative of the petitioner company and Mr. Vikram Bhatnagar, being one of the respondents [respondent no.4] and also the authorized representative of other respondents.
7. I.A. No. 2935/2020 came to be filed by the petitioner on the averment that Mr. Rakshit Jain has left the employment of the petitioner company and was not providing any assistance in operating the bank locker where the title deeds were kept. The prayers sought in I.A. No. 2935/2020 are as under: “a) Allow the present application and direct the State Bank of India, having its branch at Parliament Street, New Delhi- 110001 to allow the parties to access the title deeds kept in the Bank Locker; Alternatively, b) Direct the authorized representative of the Petitioner Company i.e. Mr. Rakshit Jain to cooperate with the Petitioner Company in taking out the title deeds from the said Bank Locker in order to enable the Parties to put the same in a separate bank locker.”
8. Vide order dated 22.07.2022, it was directed by this Court as under: “LA. 2935/2020 Despite the direction contained in order dated 03.06.2022, the respondents have still not filed a reply to this application. Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that original title deeds, which are of interest both to the petitioner and the respondents, are lying in a bank locker at the SBI Branch at Parliament Street, New Delhi, which locker was to be operated jointly by the representative of the petitioner and of respondent No. 4. However, it is submitted, that since the petitioner's representative Mr. Rakshit Jain has since left its employment, the petitioner is unable to operate the locker, which is 'attached' to the savings bank account of Mr. Rakshit Jain. In the circumstances, Mr. Gupta, submits that Mr. Rakshit Jain be summoned to court, to elicit his position, so that the locker may be accessed and the title deeds may be transferred to another locker to be held and operated jointly by the petitioner and the respondents, to preserve the documents that are crucial for the on-going arbitral proceedings. Accordingly, Mr. Rakshit Jain s/o Col. S. N. Jain (Retd.) r/o C-14, 'Green Park Extension, New Delhi is directed to remain personally present in court on the next date of hearing. A copy of this order be communicated to Mr. Rakshit Jain by the petitioner. Let proof of communication be placed on record. In the meantime, the respondents are directed to file their reply to this application, if any, within 02 weeks; failing which the application will be decided without awaiting such reply.”
9. Subsequently, I.A. No. 14881/2022 came to be filed on behalf of Mr. Rakshit Jain. The prayer in the said application is as under: “Modify the Order dated 22.7.2022 passed in IA No. 2935 of 2020 and be further pleased to keep the directions in abeyance during the pendency of proceedings pending before NCLT, New Delhi on the implementation of the Scheme of Demerger sanctioned on 18th July, 2018 in CP No. 689 of 2016.”
10. In the said application, reference has been made to a Scheme of Demerger/Scheme of Arrangement qua the petitioner company which was subject matter of the proceedings before the National Company Law Tribunal, Delhi (the “NCLT”). Attention was also drawn to the fact that Mr. Rakshit Jain is a Director of a company known as MGF Developments Limited i.e. the “Resulting Company” under the said Scheme of Demerger. In the said Scheme of Demerger, “Emaar MGF Land Limited” was referred to as “Demerged Company”. Attention has further been drawn to the judgment/order dated 08.01.2018 (as amended by order dated 16.07.2018) whereby the Scheme of Demerger was approved by the NCLT. Besides drawing attention to the Scheme of Demerger and order passed by the NCLT, attention was also drawn to an alleged Agreement titled as “Capital Towers Economic Benefit Agreement”, dated June 2017 as also an alleged “Letter Agreement” dated 13.04.2016 between Emaar Group and MGF Group and an amendment thereof on 20.08.2017. On the basis thereof, it was contended that the MGF Developments Limited group has a material interest in the land in question to the extent of 39.89%, and consequently, it has interest in the title deeds thereof. Therefore, it was contended, that the title deeds cannot be handed over to the petitioner as sought. It was also emphasized that the Scheme of Demerger has not yet been implemented, inasmuch as the allotment of shares as contemplated therein and also execution of various forms and documentation, are still pending. These are also stated to be the subject matter of pending proceedings before the NCLT, Delhi.
11. It was also averred in the application [I.A. No. 14881/2022] by Mr. Rakshit Jain that he ceased to be a Director/Authorized Representative of the petitioner as a consequence of Scheme of Demerger. However, it was submitted that while transfer of employees has taken place, other aspects of the Scheme are yet to be implemented.
12. It was submitted that only once the Scheme of Demerger was successfully implemented, that the “Demerged Undertaking” with all its assets, liabilities, interest, rights etc shall stand vested with all accruing benefits in MGF Developments Limited (Resulting Company).
13. In the backdrop of the aforesaid pleadings, it is prayed in I.A. NO. 14881/2022 as under: “a) Modify the Order dated 22.7.2022 passed in IA No. 2935 of 2020 and be further pleased to keep the directions in abeyance during the pendency of proceedings pending before NCLT, New Delhi on the implementation of the Scheme of Demerger sanctioned on 18th July, 2018 in CP No. 689 of 2016.”
14. Vide order dated 09.01.2023, it was inter alia, directed by this Court as under: “IA No.2935/2020
1. By way of this application, the petitioner/applicant seeks necessary directions for accessing the bank locker, wherein the title deeds of the project land in question are stated to have been put pursuant to the directions issued by this court on 22.07.2022.
2. Admittedly, in terms of directions issued by this court, on 02.08.2010, the title deeds of the land in question were contemplated to be kept in a locker, to be opened with State Bank of India, East Park Road, Modal Basti, Karol Bagh, Near Patel Nagar (East), New Delhi-110005 (Branch Code:6064). However, it is submitted that since the locker available in the said branch was not large enough to accommodate the title deeds in question, the petitioner and respondent agreed to utilize a locker in the State Bank of India, Parliament Street branch to keep the original title documents in question. In pursuance of this understanding, the original title documents were kept in a locker attached to the Savings Bank Account of Mr. Rakshit Jain in the State Bank of India, Parliament Street Branch.
3. Vide order dated 22.07.2022, this court passed the following order: "I.A. 2935/2020 Despite the direction contained in order dated 03.06.2022, the respondents have still not filed a reply to this application. Mr. Ravi Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that original title deeds, which are of interest both to the petitioner and the respondents, are lying in a bank locker at the SBI Branch at Parliament Street, New Delhi, which locker was to be operated jointly by the representative of the petitioner and of respondent No. 4. However, it is submitted, that since the petitioner's representative Mr. Rakshit Jain has since left its employment, the petitioner is unable to operate the locker, which is 'attached' to the savings bank account of Mr.Rakshit Jain. In the circumstances, Mr. Gupta, submits that Mr. Rakshit Jain be summoned to court, to elicit his position, so that the locker may be accessed and the title deeds may be transferred to another locker to be held and operated jointly by the petitioner and the respondents, to preserve the documents that are crucial for the on-going arbitral Accordingly, Mr. Rakshit Jain s/o Col. S. N. Jain (Retd.) r/o C-14, Green Park Extension, New Delhi is directed to remain personally present in court on the next date of hearing. A copy of this order be communicated to Mr. Rakshit Jain by the petitioner. Let proof of communication be placed on record. In the meantime, the respondents are directed to file their reply to this application, if any, within 02 weeks; failing which the application will be decided without awaiting such reply."
4. Pursuant to the above directions, an application i.e. I.A. NO. 14881/2022 has been filed on behalf of Mr.Rakshit Jain referring to certain proceedings of the NCLT and raising contentions about the rights of the petitioner in these proceedings. The said application is still pending. However, as far as the relief sought in the present application is concerned, the respective counsel for all the parties including, counsel for Mr. Rakshit Jain, are in agreement that for the present, in order to secure the title documents, a Local Commissioner be appointed by this court to retrieve the said documents, stated to be lying in the aforesaid locker in State Bank of India, Parliament Street branch. It is further agreed that the Local Commissioner will keep all the title deeds in a strong box, to be provided by Mr. Rakshit Jain and that all the keys of the said strong box will also be handed over to the Local Commissioner. After securing the title deeds in the said strong box, the Local Commissioner will hand over the same together with the keys thereof, to the Registrar General of this court, who will preserve the same till further orders.
5. It is clarified that none of the parties will retain any keys to the strong box and all the keys of the strong box will remain with the Registrar General of this court.
6. All the parties, including Mr. Rakshit Jain, agree to fully cooperate with the Local Commissioner in implementing the aforesaid directions.”
15. The aforesaid directions contained in the order dated 09.01.2023 were complied with and the title deeds of the land in question, are accordingly lying with the Registrar General of this Court.
16. Thereafter, on 12.04.2023 elaborate arguments have been addressed by the applicants in I.A. Nos. 14881/2022 and 2935/2020 and pursuant thereto the judgment was reserved in these applications.
17. Subsequently, another I.A. No. 7896/2023 came to be filed on behalf of Mr. Rakshit Jain in which again, detailed references have been made to Scheme of Demerger, objections filed by the respondents to the said Scheme, orders passed by the NCLT, the alleged “Capital Towers Economic Benefit Agreement” between Emaar Group and MGF Developments Limited Group, “Letter Agreement” dated 13.04.2016 and amendment thereof on 20.08.2017. Reference was once again made to the pending proceedings before the NCLT qua the Scheme of Demerger, including an application [C.A. 128/2020] filed under Section 231 of the Companies Act,
2013. It has been pleaded in this application that the petitioner is attempting to take control the title deeds of the land in question in which MGF Developments Limited also has vested rights. It has been sought in the said application as under: “a) Direct that the title deeds of the parcel of land admeasuring approximately 42 acres at Sector 26, Revenue Estate of village Sikanderpur Ghosi, tehsil and District Gurgaon be kept in a bank locker to be operated by joint mandate of Petitioner, Respondent (Bhatnagar Group) and MGF Developments Limited”
18. Since the averments made in I.A. No. 7896/2023 was substantially a repetition of the averments made in I.A. No. 14881/2022, respective parties were heard on the said application on 26.04.2023 and the judgment was also reserved thereon.
19. The name of the petitioner has been changed from “Emaar MGF Land Limited” to “Emaar India Limited”. Amended memo of parties to this effect is on record. Submissions of the parties
20. In the above backdrop, the submissions of the respective counsel for the parties are as under.
21. Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Mr. Ciccu Mukhopadhyaya, learned senior counsels appearing on behalf of the applicant in IA No. 2935/2020 have strenuously contended that it is not permissible for MGF/Rakshit Jain to prevent the petitioner from accessing title deeds of the land in question. It is further submitted that the arbitration between the petitioner and respondents is at an advance stage and there is a possibility of settlement being arrived at between the petitioner and the respondents. It is contended that Mr. Rakshit Jain/MGF are not parties to the on-going arbitration and that it would be appropriate to direct that the title deeds of the land in question be placed in the joint custody of the petitioner and the respondents. Learned counsel has referred to various provisions of the Scheme of Demerger and the judgment/order dated 08.01.2018 (as amended vide order dated 16.07.2018) passed by NCLT to emphasise that the land/project in question continues to be vested in the petitioner.
22. It has been further contended that “Capital Tower Economic Benefit Agreement” dated June 2017, as referred to in IA 14481/2022 has never even been executed. It is strongly contended that no rights can be asserted by the MGF/Mr. Rakshit Jain on the basis thereof.
23. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the arguments made on behalf of the petitioner, and has also referred to order dated 16.07.2018 of the NCLT to contend that M/s MGF Development Ltd. has no right whatsoever in respect of the land in question.
24. It has been contended by Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. (in IA NO. 7896/2023) and by Ms. Pooja M. Saigal, learned counsel appearing for Mr. Rakshit Jain that the Scheme of Demerger is yet to be implemented. In this regard, reference has been made to the proceedings stated to be still pending before the NCLT. It is contended that till the controversy regarding implementation of the scheme of Demerger is resolved, it would be gravely prejudicial to the interest of Rakshit Jain/MGF if the title deeds of the land in question were directed to be released to the petitioner. It is submitted that MGF, being a shareholder of the petitioner, and one of the joint venture partners, has an interest in the land in question and therefore joint custody of the title deeds ought to be given to MGF as well.
25. In rejoinder, it has been contended by Mr. Sandeep Sethi and Mr. Ciccu Mukhopadhyaya, learned senior advocates that the present petition concerns only the inter se disputes between the petitioner and the respondents arising under the Collaboration Agreement dated 21.08.2006 and that the inter se disputes between the petitioner and MGF (which is one of the shareholders of the petitioner) ought not to come in the way of the title deeds of the land in question being jointly given to the petitioner and the respondents.
26. It is strenuously contended that these proceedings are not concerned with enforcement of rights that may be asserted by MGF under the scheme of Demerger or under any subsequent agreement/s sought to be relied upon by MGF. It is also contended that the only prayer sought in IA 14881/2022 filed on behalf of the Mr. Rakshit Jain was to seek modification of the order dated 22.07.2022, in which the only direction qua Mr. Rakshit Jain was to direct him to remain personally present in the court on the next date of hearing.
27. It was re-emphasised that there is no impediment in the joint custody of title deeds being given to the petitioner and the respondents. Analysis and Findings
28. Having considered the contentions of respective counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the title deeds of the land in question are liable to be kept in the joint custody of the petitioner i.e. Emaar India Limited and Mr. Vikram Bhatnagar, respondent no.4 and authorized representative of other respondents. The prayer made in I.A. No. 7896/2023 to the effect that MGF Developments Limited be also directed to have joint custody of the title deeds is liable to be rejected. The reasons are remunerated hereunder.
29. The present proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are in the context of an Arbitration Agreement to which MGF Developments Limited is not a party. The present petition [OMP 135/2010] came to be disposed of, vide order dated 27.09.2010 in view of the fact that Arbitration between the parties was underway. MGF Developments Limited has taken no steps to implead itself in the arbitration
30. I.A. No. 2935/2020 came to be filed almost 10 years after disposal of OMP 135/2010 on the basis that the parties were unable to access the relevant locker where the title deeds were kept. Directions were issued by this Court to retrieve the title deeds, and at joint request, it was also directed that the title deeds be kept with the Registrar General of this Court during the pendency of these proceedings. However, there is no occasion to expand the scope of present proceedings so as to adjudicate upon the contentions raised by MGF Developments Limited asserting right/s in respect of land in question and seeking joint custody of the title deeds. It is open for MGF Developments Limited to initiate independent proceedings with regard to alleged rights in respect of land in question. However, this petition is not concerned with the lis between the MGF Developments Limited on the one hand and the petitioner and respondents on the other hand.
31. It is also noticed that under the Scheme of Demerger that has been placed on record, the, “Demerged Company” thereunder is “Emaar MGF Land Limited” (now known as Emaar India Limited) whereas MGF Developments Limited was referred as “Resulting Company”. The scheme of Demerger/Scheme of Arrangement as initially drawn, inter-alia, contemplates, that the following assets shall be transferred to the “Resulting Company”: “(d) all development rights relating to, in respect of, or connected with the land and all development rights in the projects comprised in the assets as set out in Annexure 2; in each case, together with advances/ deposits made by the Demerged Company to its Subsidiaries or any other persons or third party/ies owning the land in respect of the assets, as set out in Annexure 2, including all monies applied by the Demerged Company towards accounting for such rights. It is understood that all of the assets, as set out in Annexure 2, shall be free and clear of all encumbrances and liens and that the Demerged Company shall take necessary steps to release the encumbrances/liens of such assets, if any, by December 31, 2016, except as otherwise agreed.”
32. “Annexure 2” as referred in the aforesaid stipulation in the Scheme of Arrangement admittedly includes the land in question.
33. Subsequently, on objections being filed by the respondents herein, it was directed by the NCLT, vide judgment/order dated 16.07.2018 as under: “OBECTIONS OF VARIOUS OBJECTORS: BHATNAGARS
5. Against the aforesaid Scheme, various sets of objections have been filed by the objectors. One set of objections have been filed by one Mr. Virendra Kumar Bhatnagar and Mr. Anurag Bhatnagar dated 31.03.2017 vide CA No. 147 of 2017. The objectors are JV Partners with the Demerged Company-EMAAR MGF Land Ltd. in one of the Real Estate Project (Commercial Complex by the name of Capital Tower in Gurugram, Haryana). The said project is proposed to be demerged from the Demerged Company to the Resulting Company as part of the Demerged Undertaking. Reply to the objection was filed and even rejoinder has been filed by the objectors. The objector is a JV partner and has requested not to be a part of Demerger Scheme. However, the parties have agreed to bury their differences and the objector is not to be a part of Demerged Undertaking. In that regard, an affidavit dated 05.09.2017 has been filed, duly sworn in by one Mr. Bharat Bhushan Garg (PAN-AAXPG0721B), who is a Company Secretary. In the affidavit, it has been pointed out that the parties have amicably settled with the objectors in the larger interest of the ongoing project and the petitioners have acceded to the request of the objectors. Accordingly, it has been agreed to exclude the aforesaid project,- (Capital Tower, Gurugram) from the Demerged Undertaking and to retain the same in the Demerged Company-Emaar MGF Land Ltd. Pursuant to the settlement „Capital Tower Project‟ is now being retained by the Demerged Company and being excluded from the definition of the Demerged Undertaking, the reference of “Capital Towers”, Biosphere Capital Towers”, “Sikandepur Ghosi - 6.28 acres” and other assets/liabilities in relation thereto, shall stand deleted from the Scheme and the same shall be retained in the Demerged Company. Pursuant to the „Capital Tower Project‟ now being retained by the Demerged Company and being excluded from the definition of the Demerged Undertaking, the following clauses shall stand substituted to ensure compliance with Section 2(19AA) and section 72A(4) of the Income Tax Act 1961: Clause 1(vii)(C)(b) of the Scheme shall stand substituted with “accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation to the extent attributable to the demerged undertaking in accordance with the provisions of Section 72A(4) of the Income Tax Act.” Clause 3.[6] of the Scheme shall stand substituted with “Subject to consent of the debenture holders, in so far as the 22,600 Non-Convertible Debentures of the face value of Rupees One Million (INR 1,000,000) each issued by the Demerged Company is concerned, upon coming into effect of the Scheme, the face value of each such debentures shall without further act or deed be reduced by Rupees Three Hundred and Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Six (INR 307,876) such that the face value of each such debenture shall stand reduced to Rupees Six Hundred Ninety Two Thousand One Hundred Twenty Four (INR 692,124). Simultaneously and without any further act or deed, and without payment of any further amount to the Resulting Company, the debenture holders shall be entitled to an equivalent number of fully paid debentures of the face value of Rupees Three Hundred and Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Six (INR 307,876) each in the Resulting Company. At the time of redemption, the liability in respect of the debentures of the Demerged Company as aforesaid shall be Rupees Six Hundred Ninety Two Thousand One Hundred Twenty Four (INR 692,124) per debenture, and the liability in respect of the debentures of the Resulting Company shall be Rupees Three Hundred and Seven Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Six (INR 307,876) per debenture. The above shall be subject to Applicable Law, listing and/or admitted to trading on the relevant stock exchange in India where the debt securities are listed and/or admitted for trading and the Demerged Company and the Resulting Company will make necessary filings to the Stock Exchange in relation to the same. In accordance with Clause 24.[2] of the Scheme, any other part of the Scheme which as a result of Capital Tower Project now being retained in the Demerged Company requires modification to ensure compliance with Section 2(19AA) of the Income Tax Act, shall also stand modified. In fact, the affidavits on behalf of the demerged company and the resulting company in support of revised/ updated schedule of properties of the demerged undertaking of the demerged company proposed to be demerged into the resulting company has been placed on record”
34. It is evident from the aforesaid order of the NCLT that the land/project in question has been excluded from the definition of “Demerged Undertaking” and the same has been directed to be retained by the petitioner herein (Demerged Company).
35. As far as the “Capital Towers Economic Benefit Agreement” dated June, 2017 is concerned, a duly signed copy thereof has not been placed on record. Morover, a perusal of the same reveals that it contemplates that MGF Developments Limited would became a “contributor” in respect of the project pertaining to construction and development of the land in question, and in lieu thereof, it would be entitled to a share of the economic benefit arising out of the “Developer Project Share”. The said agreement also contains an arbitration clause. If at all the said agreement creates any rights in favour of MGF and/or warrants that MGF should have joint custody of the title documents in respect of the land in question, it is open for MGF to initiate appropriate proceedings seeking the same. Likewise, if at all, the “Letter Agreement” confers any right upon MGF, it is open to MGF to assert those rights in appropriate proceedings and seek appropriate order/s. In the present proceedings, there is no warrant to accede to the prayer/s sought in IA No.7896/2023.
36. In the circumstances, as jointly prayed by the petitioner and the respondents, the custody of the title deeds/documents are directed to be placed in the joint custody of the petitioner and the respondents.
37. It is clarified that Mr. Rakshit Jain and/or MGF shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings asserting their right/s, if any, in respect of the land/project which shall be decided in accordance with law. This order should not be considered as an expression of opinion with regard thereto.
38. In the circumstances, IA No. 14881/2022, 7896/2023 are dismissed. IA No. 2935/2020 is disposed of with the direction that the title deeds of the land in question, which are presently lying with the Registrar General of this court, be released to the petitioner and the respondents, who shall retain joint custody thereof. The same shall be subject to further order/s in the pending arbitration proceedings.
SACHIN DATTA, J JULY 03, 2023