Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Mini Pushkarna, J.
Pawan Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Kamal Gupta - Respondent
O.M.P (I) (COMM) No. 186 of 2022
Decided On : 05-07-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. family settlement details and background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. division of family assets and liabilities. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. petitioner's claims on non-implementation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. respondent's disputes on family settlement. (Para 14 , 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 5. court's limited jurisdiction under section 9. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 6. court orders on preserving disputed assets. (Para 39 , 40 , 44) |
JUDGMENT
Mini Pushkarna, J.
I.A. 9427/2022 (filed by the appellant exemption from filing true typed copies of the dim and/or improperly formatted and/or certified copies of the documents)
Exemption allowed, subject to just exception.
Application stands disposed of accordingly.
O.M.P (I) (COMM) No.186/2022
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter, referred as "the Act") interalia praying for urgent protective orders with reference to implementation of a family settlement arrived at between the family members, to its fullest extent and in the letter and spirit of the terms and conditions agreed between them.
2. The disputes between the parties have arisen in relation to oral Family Settlement dated 30.09.2014, which as per the petitioner has been recorded in the Family Settlement Deed dated 20.06.2015 and Family Settlement Deed/Memorandum of Understanding dated 09.07.2019 executed by the family members. The petitioner is seeking urgent reliefs under Section 9 of the Act for preservation of assets which are falling to the petitioner's share under the binding family settlement between the family members. After the family settlement, the family is identified as two groups i.e. Pawan Gupta (PG) Group and Kamal Gupta (KG) Group.
3. The petitioner is the founding member of the family business of PP Jewellers Group which is engaged primarily in the business of manufacturing and sale of gold, precious stones and jewellery. Subsequently, the business was joined by other family members including petitioner's elder brother Sh. Kamal Gupta, respondent no. 1 and his family. The family members have incorporated various entities for operating this business through a number of showrooms and have also acquired immovable properties as well as valuable movable assets including stocks of silver/gold/precious stones/diamonds/jewellery etc.
4. Certain differences arose between the family members in the conduct of the family businesses. In order to resolve all such differences between the family members, a family settlement for distribution of the assets and liabilities of the family businesses/properties etc had taken place on 30.09.2014. As per the case of the petitioner, the family settlement arrived at between the family members on 30.09.2014, was recorded subsequently in the family settlement deed dated 20.06.2015. The family members in continuation of the aforesaid family settlement dated 30.09.2014 and 20.06.2015, also executed MOU/Deed dated 09.07.2019.
5. Under the terms of the family settlement, the share of the petitioner's family was decided as 23% in the family business, while the share of petitioner's elder brother and his family was decided as 77% in the family business.
6. As on 30.09.2014, business showrooms of M/s PP Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. respondent no. 4 were located at four places namely:
i. Pitampura Showroom [H-5, Netaji Subhash Place, Pitmpura New Delhi-110006].
ii. Karol Bagh Showroom [2700, Desh Bandhu Gupta Road].
iii. Sadar Bazar Showroom [Shop No. 674-675, Rani Jhansi Road, Baratooti, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi].
iv. Chandni Chowk Showroom [1178 Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk].
7. Under the terms of the family settlement it was agreed that the Karol Bagh showroom of PP Jewellers shall fall to the share of the petitioner, while the other showrooms as on that date shall fall to the share of his elder brother, respondent no. 1 herein.
8. It was also agreed under the family settlement that the stocks of gold, precious st
The court emphasized the duty to uphold family arrangements and give full effect to such arrangements instead of disturbing them on technical or trivial grounds.
The court ruled that a non-signatory to Family Settlement Deeds cannot be bound by their terms, ensuring that their rights remain protected outside arbitration proceedings.
Family settlements may not require registration if agreed upon previously, as affirmed by established legal principles.
The main legal point established is the binding nature of family settlements, the recognition of family settlements as a mechanism to maintain harmony and reduce litigation within families, and the e....
An unregistered document that creates or extinguishes rights in immovable property for the first time requires mandatory registration. If such a document is the sole basis of a suit and lacks registr....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and validity of a Family Settlement Deed, emphasizing that it does not require registration if it does not create or extinguish a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between necessary and proper parties in a suit, and the binding nature of the relief of declaration only on the parties to the suit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of registration for family arrangements reduced into writing by a document, as per the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Cour....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
