IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1)

Ish Kirpa Properties Pvt. Ltd. ……Appellant(s)

Versus Shakuntala & others ……Respondent(s)

FAO-CARB-12-2025 (O&M)

(2)

Ish Kirpa Properties Pvt. Ltd. ……Appellant(s)

Versus Jaggu @ Jugbeer & others ……Respondent(s)

Decided on : 14.10.2025 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr.Jagdeep S.Rana, Advocate Mr.Arvind K.Bangar, Advocate, for the appellant(s).

*****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA , J. (Oral)

CM-46-FCARB-2025 in FAO-CARB-11-2025 CM- 48-FCARB-2025 in FAO-CARB-12-2025 In view of the averments made in the applications, delay of 61-65 days in filing the present appeals is hereby condoned.

CMs stand disposed of.

FAO-CARB-11 & 12-2025 (O&M)

This judgment shall dispose of two appeals bearing FAO-CARB-

11 & 12-2025 involving common questions of law and facts. To dictate orders, facts have been taken from FAO-CARB-11-2025 titled Ish Kirpa Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Shakuntala & others.

2. This appeal is directed against refusal by the Commercial Court to grant any interim injunction in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the ‘Act’). The Commercial Court has examined the matter and has come to the conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to any interim protection.

3. Undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant accepted the offer of the respondents for transfer of certain land. The Agreement To Sell was executed on 11.01.2012 in respect of 130 kanals 8 marlas land out of the total share of the respondents in Khasra No.521 ad-measuring 65.1875 acres, situated in Village Wazirpur, Tehsil & District Gurugram. As per the Agreement to Sell, the land was to be sold @ Rs.2.85 crores per acre. According to the appellant, he paid Rs.4,64,46,094/- towards earnest money but the sale deed was never executed. It transpires that the appellant initially filed a Original Suit claiming permanent injunction before the Trial Court in respect of the land in question which was ultimately withdrawn. It is, thereafter, that an application has been filed before the Court below under Section 9 of the Act on 02.12.2022 with the prayer to injunct the respondents from transferring the land or creating any third party rights.

4. The Trial Court has taken note of the facts, according to which, the filing of the petition under Section 9 of the Act was not in good faith inasmuch as the appellant had initially filed a suit without availing of the remedy of arbitration. The suit was subsequently withdrawn. The filing of the application under Section 9 of the Act was nearly 10 years after execution of the Agreement to Sell. The Commercial Court has also taken note of the fact that neither any suit for specific performance was filed nor any steps were taken to proceed with the arbitration and therefore, filing of the application under Section 9 of the Act, at such belated stage, was held to be devoid of merits.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the parties were in touch with each other and attempt for amicable settlement was going on on account of which the application under Section 9 of the Act was not filed earlier.

6. On a pointed query raised by the Court as to whether any application under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 has been filed for appointment of Arbitrator, learned counsel fairly states that such an application is yet to be filed.

7. We have heard Shri Jagdeep S.Rana, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material on record.

8. The Trial Court has essentially declined to grant injunction in favour of the appellant after returning a finding that payment of cash amount to the respondents towards earnest money, as was mentioned in the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act, is disputed. Doubts have been expressed with regard to tendering of such payment inasmuch as the payment of earnest money is not from the accounts of the appellant but is from the account of one Rosemary Buildcom