Back
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Deepa Sharma, J.
Veena Manghani & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Subhash Arora - Respondent
OMP No. 885/2014
Decided On : 31-10-2014
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 12 Rule 6 - Arbitration Award - Challenge - Scope of intervention - Agreement to sell has been executed between the parties - Claimant had paid a sum of Rs. 7.25 crores and was ready to pay the balance sum of Rs. 17.75. - Dispute arose between the parties - Arbitrator on the basis of evidence and the admissions had reached to the conclusion that there existed the agreement to sell between the parties under which the payments by way of demand drafts and by way of cash against receipts had been made to the petitioners - Contentions of the petitioner that the payments were made against an oral collaboration agreement between the parties had been rejected by the learned Arbitrator for the reasons discussed elaborately in the award - Held, it is not open for this Court to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidences - Arbitrator has correctly acted while accepting the written agreement to sell between the parties against the alleged collaboration agreement - Petitioner has failed to make out the existence any ground as enumerated under Section 34(2) of the Act which requires intervention of this Court - Petition is dismissed.
1. Vide this petition, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 13th May, 2014, whereby the claim of the respondent was decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC, on several grounds.
2. The facts show that the respondent was the claimant before the Arbitrator and the case of the respondent before the Arbitrator was that the petitioners were the owners of property No. W-54, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi, measuring 500 square yards and vide agreement to sell dated 07.02.2012 (due to inadvertent typographical error has been wrongly mentioned as 07.01.2012) had purchased the said property for a total consideration of Rs 25 crore. The respondent/claimant had paid a sum of Rs. 7.25 crores and was ready to pay the balance sum of Rs. 17.75. The manner of payment was also shown by the respondent-claimant which has been re-produced by the learned Arbitrator in his award as under:-
“A. While entering into an agreement to sell, an advance payment of Rs. 3 crore is made in the following manner:-
a. Rs. 50 lakh vide DD No. 256841 dated 07.02.2012
b. Rs. 50 lakh vide DD No. 256842 dated 07.02.2012
c. Rs. 50 lakh vide DD No. 256843 dated 07.02.2012 all drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
d. Rs. 1.50 crore in cash on 07.02.2012 upon execution of money receipt by the claimants.
Copy of the Drafts Drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and Agreement to Sell acknowledging cash payment are filed on record along with the Claim Petition.
B. On 05.03.2012, payment of Rs. 12 lakhs is made in the following manner:-
a. Vide cheque No. 002650, drawn in favour of Smt. Veena Manghani
b. Vide cheque No. 002652, drawn in favour of Sh. Narinder Manghani
c. Vide cheque No. 002653 drawn in favour of Sh. Hans Raj Manghani
d. Vide cheque No. 002654 drawn in favour of Sh. Deepak Manghani
Each of the aforesaid cheques were for a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs.
Copy of the cheques dated 05.03.2012 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi and receiving on the photocopies of cheques are filed on record.
C. On 19.03.2012 and 22.03.2012 payment of Rs. 2 crores is made to the respondents, in following manner, viz.
a. On 19.03.2012 an amount of Rs. 1.50 crores (i.e. Rs. 37.50 lakhs each) was paid to the respondents upon acknowledgement in form of ‘receipt cum earnest money’.
b. PDC dated 22.03.2012 for total of an amount of Rs. 50 lacs (i.e. Rs. 12.50 lakhs each) was paid to the respondents vide Cheque No. 002625 in favour of Smt. Veena Manghani; Cheque No. 002626 in favour of Sh. Narinder Manghani; Cheque No. 002627 in favour of Sh. Hans Raj Manghani; Cheque No. 002628 in favour of Sh. Deepak Manghani. All drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, New Delhi
Copy of the receipt cum earnest money, acknowledging the transaction dated 19.03.2012 and PDCs dated 22.03.2012 executed by the Respondents is placed on record.
D. On 23.03.2012, further payment of Rs. 1 crore, was made by the Claimant in following manner:
a. Rs. 20 lakh vide DD No. 922081 drawn on Kotak Mahindra Bank, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi
b. Rs. 20 lakh in cash paid to Smt. Veena Manghani
c. Rs. 20 lakh in cash paid to Sh. Narinder Manghani
d. Rs. 20 lakh in cash paid to SH. Hans Raj Manghani
e. Rs. 20 lakh in cash paid to Sh. Deepak Manghani
Copy of the receipt cum earnest money dated 23.03.2012 executed by the Respondents, acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 1 crore is placed on record.
E. On 05.03.2012, Claimant made further payment of Rs. 12 lakhs in the following manner:-
a. Vide cheque No. 002650, drawn in favour of Smt. Veena Manghani for Rs. 3 lakhs
b. Vide cheque No. 002652, drawn in favour of Sh. Narinder Manghani for Rs. 3 lacs
c. Vie cheque No. 002653 drawn in favour Sh. Hans Raj Manghani for Rs. 3 lacs
d. Vide cheque No. 002654 drawn in favour of Sh. Deepak Manghani for Rs. 3 lacs
F. On 04.04.2012, Claimant made further payment of Rs. 18 lakhs in the following manner:-
a. Rs. 4.50 lakh paid in cash to Smt. Veena Manghani
b. Rs. 4.50 lakh paid in cash to Sh. Narinder Manghani
c. Rs. 4.50 lakh
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
