Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 947
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
JAIWANT DAULAT SINGH & OTHERS – Petitioners
Versus
EMAAR MGF LAND LIMITED – Respondent
O.M.P. (I) No. 432 of 2015
Decided On : 22-02-2016
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kapil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amitabh Chaturvedi and Mr. Sumit Kumar Shukla, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Ms. Manmeet Arora, Mr. Sarad K. Sunny and Mr. Tarang Gupta, Advocates.
The court applied Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to grant an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of the petitioners, and directed the parties to raise their respective pleas before the Arbitrator.
Headnote:
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Injunction - Section 9
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a petition seeking injunction against the respondent from terminating the Buyers Agreements and allied agreements, and from claiming certain charges until the final decision of the arbitral proceedings. The court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction in favor of the petitioners.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had made out a case for grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction, and the balance of convenience lay in favor of the petitioners. The court directed the petitioners to deposit a specified amount with the Registrar General of the Court, and upon deposit, the respondent would hand over possession of the suit property to the petitioners.
Issues: Dispute over payment of maintenance charges, delayed payment charges, and other charges under the Buyers Agreements. The petitioners sought injunction against the respondent's demands and termination of the agreements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners were required to deposit a specified amount with the Court, and upon deposit, the respondent would hand over possession of the suit property to the petitioners. The court directed the parties to raise their respective pleas before the Arbitrator, who would decide the same as per their merits.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of, and no costs were awarded.
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
1. Eight petitioners have filed the present petition against the respondent under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking the following reliefs:
“a. pass an order of injunction in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondent, restraining the Respondent from terminating the Buyers Agreements and/or all the allied agreements/documents executed by and between Petitioners and the Respondent and/or executing and registering any cancellation deed in respect thereof, till the final decision of the arbitral proceedings and appellate proceedings, if any, at all times before or during or after arbitration proceedings;
b. pass an order of injunction in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondent, restraining the Respondent from claiming - (i) any delayed payment interest charges (2) any maintenance charges (3) any holding charges or any other charges of a like nature, by whatever name called, till the final decision of the arbitral proceedings and appellate proceedings, if any, at all times before or during or after arbitration proceedings;
c. pass an order of injunction in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondent, restraining the Respondent their officers, employees, representatives, agents, nominees, permitted assigns, etc. and any persons claiming through or under them or on their behalf from any or one of them in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, from dealing with the said Office Spaces or any part thereof and/or from entering into any agreement/arrangement with respect to the said Office Spaces which is the subject matter of the instant proceeding, and/or creating any third party rights and interest therein or any portion thereof and/or from transferring, alienating or otherwise dealing with or disposing of the same or any portion thereof to any third person, till the final decision of the arbitral proceedings and appellate proceedings, if any, at all times before or during or after arbitration proceedings;
d. pass an order of injunction in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondent, restraining the Respondent from stopping, preventing, obstructing in any manner whatsoever, the Petitioners access/ rights of ingress and outgress in the Commercial Complex and/or the said Office Spaces as provided by the Respondent under the Buyers Agreements and all the allied agreements/ documents till the final decision of the arbitral proceedings and appellate proceedings, if any, at all times before or during or after arbitration proceedings;
e. pass an order of injunction in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondent, restraining the Respondent from interfering with or obstructing, in any manner, with all or any of the rights of the Petitioners under the Buyers Agreements and all allied agreements/documents till the final decision of the arbitral proceedings and appellate proceedings, if any, at all times before or during or after arbitration proceedings;
f. pass an order of mandatory injunction in favour of the Petitioners and against the Respondent directing it to provide a draft of the conveyance deed to be executed between/ amongst the parties with respect to the Office Spaces (suit properties) till the final decision of the arbitral proceedings and appellate proceedings, if any, at all times before or during or after arbitration proceedings;
g. grant ad interim ex-parte relief in terms of the above prayers;
h. grant costs of this petition and of the proceedings initiated thereunder.”
2. When the petition was listed before Court on 13th August, 2015 while issuing the notice, the following order was passed:
“Issue notice to the respondent by all modes including registered, speed post and/or approved courier on filing of process fee within one week, returnable on 3rd September, 2015. Dasti as well.
This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeks inter alia, restrainment of the Respondent from term
