The main legal point established in the judgment is that a purportedly fresh cause of action cannot extend the limitation period for filing an arbitration petition, and the court may dismiss a petition if it is manifest that the claims are ex facie time-barred and there is no subsisting dispute.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral). - ARB.P. 593/2020, LA. 10525/2020 & LAs. 987-988/2021

1. The earlier rejection of a nearly identical petition, also filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, (in short 'the Act'), for the same relief as sought in the present petition has not dissuaded it from making another attempt. The Petitioner asserts that notwithstanding the dismissal of the earlier petition, the instant petition is maintainable as a new cause of action has occurred. The Court is eager to know what this new cause of action is.

Brief Facts

2. Since the facts of the case have a long and chequered history leading to multiple litigations before this Court, it would be apposite to briefly note crucial facts, before embarking upon deciding the contentions put forth by the parities. As a matter of fact, the factual narrative stated in the instant petition is largely identical to what had been stated in the earlier petition. Thus, we have taken the liberty, in certain places, to cull out some facts verbatim as recorded in the judgment of this Court in the previous round of litigation in Arb. P. 143/2018.[1]

[1] Delivered on 23rd July, 2018 by a coordinate bench of this court.

Disputes between the parties

2.1. The Petitioner claims that on 29th November, 1994, a firm was constituted by Mr. Georges Mailhot and his wife Ms. Bina K. Ramani. The firm known as 'Integration 2020' purchased the property being 1,038 square yards along with construction thereon bearing municipal numbers H-5/6 to H-5/10, Municipal Ward No. 1, situated opposite Qutub Minar, Mehrauli, New Delhi and some adjoining land, totalling 1440 sq. mt., popularly known as Qutub Colonnade (hereinafter 'suit premises') by an Agreement to Sell dated 2nd March, 1995 executed by the owners of the property, namely, Amarnath and Dewan Chand. The said owners also executed a Power of Attorney and affidavits in favour of the Firm. It is stated that the suit premises was duly mutated in the records of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, in the name of the Firm.

2.2. The partnership deed dated 29th November, 1994 entered into between Mr. Georges Mailhot and Ms. Bina K. Ramani was modified by the partners on 23rd July, 2005 and the Firm was duly registered with the Registrar of Firms, Government of NCT of Delhi. On 20th May, 2010, the partnership deed dated 29th November, 1994 (as amended on 23rd July, 2005) was further amended and the name of the Firm was changed from 'Integration 2020' to 'Integration 2020 Developers' (in short 'the Firm').

2.3. The Petitioner claims that sometime in the month of May/June, 2012, Respondent No. 1 approached the Petitioner and expressed his interest to acquire the entire stake of the partners in the Firm. It is claimed that Respondent No. 1 was interested in opening an art club/art gallery and required the property owned by the Firm for the said purpose. As per the Respondent No. 1, the then partners of the Partnership Firm were willing to sell their entire stake in the Partnership Firm to the Respondent No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 20,00,00,000/-. The Respondent No. 1 intimated to the Petitioner that although he had investors who were willing to infuse Rs. 10,00,00,000 for buying out 50% stake in the Firm, he was in need of another sum of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- for buying out the balance stake, and requested the Petitioner to fund the same by way of a loan. The Respondent No. 1 said that he will repay the loan in about a month or so. The Petitioner accordingly agreed to fund the buy-out of the Firm from the then partners.

2.4. The Petitioner claims that they entered into a Loan Agreement with the Respondents on 4th June, 2012, whereby the Petitioner agreed to give a loan of Rs. 5 crores to each of the Respondents. The original loan amount alongwith interest due was to be repaid within a minimum period of one month and maximum period of three months effective from 4th June, 2012. In the Loan Agreement, it was agree