IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Mukut House Developers Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Gurinder Singh Kairon & Anr. - Respondents
ARB.P. 312 of 2021 & I.A. 12501 of 2021
Decided On : 31-10-2022
Impleadment - Application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC,1908 - Collaboration Agreement - Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application for impleadment of legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC,1908. The deceased respondent No.1 was a signatory to the Collaboration Agreement dated September 07, 2011. The application was allowed, and the deceased respondent No.1 was to be represented through his legal heir, respondent No.2.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the application for impleadment and directed the petitioner to file an amended memo of parties within 10 days.
Issues: Impleadment of legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC,1908.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the deceased respondent No.1 should be represented through his legal heir, respondent No.2, and allowed the application for impleadment.
Final Decision: The application for impleadment was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to file an amended memo of parties within 10 days.
JUDGMENT
V. Kameswar Rao, J. - I.A. 12501/2021
1. This is an application filed by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC,1908, for impleadment of legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.1. The prayers made in the application are the following:-
'In light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Take on record Respondent No.2, namely Shri Harpratap Singh as the legal heir of the deceased Respondent No.1, namely Shri Gurinder Singh Kairon in this petition;
b) Direct the Respondent No.2 to file on affidavit the particulars of any other legal heirs of the deceased Respondent No.1 and permit the Petitioner to file an amended memo of parties thereafter;
c) Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.'
2. It is the case of the petitioner, in this application, that the respondent No.1 has expired on December 31, 2020. It is also the case of the petitioner that both the respondents i.e., the respondent No.1 viz. late Sh. Gurinder Singh Kairon and the respondent No.2 viz. Harpratap Singh, were signatory to the Collaboration Agreement dated September 07, 2011. It is also stated that the respondent No.2, is the son of the deceased respondent No.1 and the petitioner and its Counsels do not have any information pertaining to any other legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.1. It is also stated that the respondent No.2 substantially represents the estate of the deceased respondent No.1 and shall continue to defend the present petition on behalf of the late respondent No.1. So, it is prayed before this Court that the respondent No.2 be taken on record as the legal heir of the deceased respondent No.1.
3. In view of the stand of the petitioner, the present application is allowed and thus the deceased respondent No.1 shall be represented through his legal heir i.e., respondent No.2. Accordingly, the amended memo of parties be filed by the petitioner within the period of 10 days from today.
4. Application stands disposed of.
ARB.P. 312/2021
5. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'A&C Act,1996') with the following prayer:
'In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Appoint a neutral Sole Arbitrator as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 pursuant to Arbitration Clause in the Collaboration Agreement dated 07.09.2013;
b) Grant the cost of the present Petition to the Petitioner;
c) Pass any other order/s that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.'
6. It is a case where the petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, entered into the 'Collaboration Agreement' (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Agreement') dated September 07, 2011, with the respondents.
7. As per the Agreement, the respondents, inter alia, had to provide the 'Project Land' i.e., the land comprising of 'Building No.3 bearing Corporation No.362/XII-min. along with land underneath measuring 6675 sq. yards bearing khasra no.1312 and 1315, situated at THE MALL, Amritsar, Punjab', at the complete disposal of the petitioner for the construction and development of the 'Complex' (i.e., the commercial complex comprising of shopping mall and two basements to be constructed on the 'Project Land') and whereas the petitioner's primary obligation inter alia was to pay the amounts and refundable sums/deposits to the respondents as a consideration for the development and construction of the afore-said 'Complex'.
8. It is the case of the petitioner that it had paid an amount of ?10,25,00,000/- as the total consideration amount under the 'Agreement', in the following manner:
i) ?6,75,00,000/- was paid as an interest free refundable deposit to the
Garware Wall Ropes Ltd. vs. Coastal Marine Constructions and Engineering Limited
N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs. Indo Unique Flame Limited & Ors.
SMS Tea Estates Private Limited vs. Chandmari Tea Company Private Limited
State of Maharashtra & Anr. vs. Sarva Shramik Sangh, Sangli & Ors.
The legal principle established is the application of Order 1 Rule 10 read with Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC,1908 for impleadment of legal heirs of the deceased respondent No.1.
Legal heirs may represent a deceased party in arbitration proceedings; unresolved issues regarding agreement stamping do not halt arbitration process pending settlement by a higher bench.
Appointment of Sole Arbitrator – Any concerns of non-stamping or under stamping would not affect validity of arbitration agreement.
Point of law : Arbitration - Whether the stamp duty so paid is insufficient or appropriate is a question that may be gone into at a later stage; Supreme Court would not review or go into this aspect ....
An arbitrator's appointment must adhere to the agreed procedure; failure to do so renders the appointment invalid under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.
The appointment of an arbitrator is invalid if the partnership deed is not duly stamped and jurisdiction lies where the immovable property is situated.
The arbitration agreement binds all parties, including non-signatories, and disputes must be referred to arbitration despite objections on limitation and jurisdiction.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.