SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
Himanshu Modi - Appellant
Versus
Sudhanshu Modi - Respondent
O.M.P.(I) 2 of 2021 & I.A. 1439 of 2021
Decided On : 05-10-2021




Parties' consent regarding property division in arbitration proceeding is binding and sufficient basis for court to dismiss interim relief petition.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 9 - Petition for pre-arbitral interim reliefs regarding share in property - Respondents conferred their consent for the petitioner to receive 50% share in disputed properties without objection - Petition allowed to be withdrawn. (Paras 1-4)

(B) Consent - A party’s consent recorded by the court is binding and reflects an agreement in the interim for the distribution of property in arbitration. (Para 2)

Facts of the case:
The petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 sought 50% share in properties located in New Delhi and Mathura. The respondents present during the hearing did not object to the granting of this share to the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The respondents' statement of granting a 50% share to the petitioner was recorded and they are bound by it. The petition was disposed of as withdrawn.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner could be granted a 50% share in the properties as claimed.

Ratio Decidendi: Consent from the respondents for the division of property in the interim is decisive; thus, the court allowed the petitioner's withdrawal of the petition in light of the respondents' agreement.

Result: Petition allowed to be withdrawn.

Table of Content
1. petition seeks 50% property share. (Para 1)
2. respondents agree to petitioner's property share. (Para 2)
3. court records respondents' statement. (Para 3)
4. petition disposed of as withdrawn. (Para 4)

ORDER (ORAL)

C. Hari Shankar, J. This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking pre-arbitral interim reliefs. The main claim of the petitioner against the respondents is for 50% share in the property at E-II/36, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and Flat No. 2, Ground Floor, Madhav Kunj, Nandan Van Sunrakh Bangar, Vrindavan, Tehsil and District - Mathura, U.P.

2. Dr. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the respondents is present during the hearing alongwith the respondents who are present in person. The respondents submit that they have no objection to the petitioner being granted 50% share in the aforesaid properties.

3. As such, the statement of the respondents in that regard is recorded. They shall remain bound by the said statement. In view thereof, Mr. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this petition.

4. The petition alongwith the pending application is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top