FAO(OS) (COMM) 92/2022 Page 1 of 18

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 05^thMay, 2022

Pronounced on: 20^th May, 2022

+

FAO(OS) (COMM) 92/2022

SH. SANJAY ROY

..... Appellant

Represented by:

Mr. Lalit Bhardwaj & Mr. Jatin

Anand Dwivedi, Advocates.

versus

SANDEEP SONI & ORS.

..... Respondents

Represented by:

Mr. Rakesh Saini, Advocate for R-1.

Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw& Mr. Ashutosh

Rana, Advocates for R-2 & 3

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA

HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G E M E NT

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1.

This Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 (hereinafter referred to as A&C Act,1996) read with Section 13 of

Commercial Courts Act 2015, has been filed against the judgment and order

dated 1^st February, 2022, whereby the objections of respondent no.1 under

Section 34 of A&C Act,1996 against the Award dated 2^nd March, 2020, have

been allowed and it is held that late Smt. Kalyani Roy was the absolute

owner of the property in respect of which she had entered into a

Collaboration Agreement with Respondent no.1 Shri. Sandeep Soni.

2.

The facts in brief are that Shri Subhash Chand Roy, deceased father of

the appellant and respondent nos. 2 to 4 i.e. Mrs. Gouri Sarkar, Mr.

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001942

FAO(OS) (COMM) 92/2022 Page 2 of 18

Amitabho Roy & Mr. Partho Sarathi Roy, was the absolute owner of

property bearing No. D-603, Chittaranjan Park, New Delhi-110017,

admeasuring 160 sq. yards (hereinafter referred to as the suit property).

Late Shri Subhash Chand Roy executed a Will dated 15^thMarch, 1988,

bequeathing the suit property in favor of his wife. He died on 30^thJanuary,

1991 and was survived by his wife Smt. Kalyani Roy and the children i.e.

the appellant and respondent nos. 2 to 4.

3.

The legal heirs, viz. appellant- Sh. Sanjay Roy and respondent No.2 to

4 gave a “No Objection” in favour of Smt. Kalyani Roy who got the

property mutated in her name vide letter No. L&DO/PSII/280 dated 6^thApril,

1995. Subsequently, a Conveyance Deed dated 7^thDecember, 2001 was also

executed by the L&DO in favour of Smt. Kalyani Roy.

4.

Smt. Kalyani Roy also executed a Will dated 30^th March, 2016

wherein she bequeathed the suit property equally to the appellant and the

respondents Nos.2 to 4 i.e. (i) Mrs. Gauri Sarkar (Daughter) (ii) Amitabho

Roy (Son) (iii) Sanjay Roy (Son) (iv) ParthoSarthy Roy (Son, who left the

house on 07.10.1999 subject to the condition that if he did not turn back

within one year from the date of demise of Smt. Kalyani Roy, his 1/4th

share shall devolve upon her following four grandchildren, namely: (a) Aditi

Sarkar D/o Sh. Pronab Kumar Sarkar (b) Shibhani Roy D/ Sh. Sanjay Roy

(c) Juimala Roy D/o SH. Sanjay Roy, and (d) Aditya Roy S/o Amitabho

Roy.

5. Smt. Kalyani Roy died on 19.01.2017. During her lifetime, she

entered into a Collaboration Agreement dated 9^thAugust, 2016 with

respondent no.1 as the owner of the suit property, according to which the

property after demolition, was to be re-constructed and developed after

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001942

FAO(OS) (COMM) 92/2022 Page 3 of 18

getting the building plan sanctioned from the concerned authority. The

allocation of specific floors as well as schedule of payment was defined in

the Collaboration Agreement. An amount of ₹25,00,000/-was also paid to

Smt. Kalyani Roy by respondent no.1 in terms of the Collaboration

Agreement. A Deed of Extension was entered into on 27.