Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
JYOTI SINGH, J.
Sona Corporation India Pvt.Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Ingram Micro India Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. - Respondents
ARB. A. (COMM.) 12 of 2020
Decided On : 04-03-2020
For the Appellant :Ms. Maneesha Dhir, Mr. Karan Batura & Ms. Mallika Chadha, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Sudhir Kumar & Mr. Sumit Gaur, Advocates
The decision emphasized the importance of producing all relevant documents before the Arbitrator and highlighted the significance of the documents filed before the Arbitrator in influencing the decision.
Headnote:
Valuation - Arbitration - Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Land Pooling Policy - R-Zone - Residential Zone Category/Entitlement - Circle rate - Valuation report - Government Valuer - Surety - Impugned Order
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought further time to produce documents in support of the valuation of the property offered as security in aid of Arbitration, citing a Government Notification and a judgment of a Division Bench. The Arbitrator declined the request based on the documents filed before it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Arbitrator's decision was based on the documents filed before it and that the appellant cannot rely on additional documents for the first time in the appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the valuation of the property offered as security in aid of Arbitration and the admissibility of additional documents in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant cannot rely on documents not produced before the Arbitrator and that the Arbitrator's decision was based on the documents filed before it.
Final Decision: The appeal, along with the accompanying application, was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
JYOTI SINGH, J.
I.A. 3048 & 3049/2020
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Applications stand disposed of.
ARB. A. (COMM.) 12/2020 & I.A. 3047/2020
1. The present appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 27.02.2020 passed by the Sole Arbitrator.
2. Ms. Dhir, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Arbitrator has erred in not granting further time to the appellant herein for producing documents in support of the valuation of the property sought to be offered as security in aid of Arbitration. She submits that there is a Government Notification dated 16.05.2017 issued by Government of NCT of Delhi which has changed the status of the said property from “agricultural land” to “urban area/urbanised area”. She further submits that the Arbitrator has failed to take into consideration that in furtherance of the said Notification, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (Delhi Division) has issued a Notification dated 11.10.2018, pursuant to which the property being offered now comes under Land Pooling Policy, under “R-Zone”, that is, Residential Zone Category/Entitlement.
3. She also relies on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd. vs. Dinesh Kalra 2018 LawSuit(Del) 2067, and contends that the Division Bench has clearly held that the circle rate is not a conclusive evidence for valuation of a property. Relevant paras read as under:
“Thus, the circle rate is not a conclusive evidence at all for the valuation. The Circle rate is giving only a guidance to the Collector for determination of the value under Section 47A of the Act, 1899. If the Collector has to mechanically adopt circle rate and multiply it with area of the plot, for determination of value of the property, perhaps Section 47-A(2) would not be needed at all.
6. Counsel for the respondent (original petitioner) has also relied upon several decisions. As the matter is being remanded by the learned Single Judge and as we are dismissing this appeal, without going into the details of the judgments, but, suffice it to say that the circle rates are not the only factors to be kept in mind by the Collector. The circle rate can be one of the factors to be kept in mind by the Collector for determination of the value under Section 47A of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899, especially, when the person who has approached for registration of the sale deed is disputing the valuation pointed out by the registering authority. In such an eventuality, detailed procedure ought to have been followed by the Collector as per Section 47-A(2) of the Act, 1899 keeping in mind the aforesaid aspects of the matter as well as the principles propounded by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, for determination of the value of the property. The mechanical approach of the Collector only to follow the circle rate is hereby deprecated.”
4. Ms. Dhir further submits that had the Arbitrator given them some more time, the relevant documents could have been produced before the Arbitrator and the appellant may have been successful in satisfying that the property was correctly valued. She also submits that since the Valuation report was by a Government Valuer, the impression of the appellant was that the Arbitrator would not doubt or dispute the valuation.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, who appears on advance copy, however, submits that all the documents which are now being sought to be relied upon are of the period prior to the passing of the order and therefore, there was nothing that prevented the appellant from filing these documents along with the application. Having chosen not to file those documents, the appellant cannot be allowed to improve its case in an appeal. He further submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order, as the Arbitrator was required to decide the matter only on the basis of the documents, that were placed before him.
6. Counsel for the respondent further argues that the appellant is repeatedly filing appe
