O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 192/2022 Page 1 of 20

$~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%

Reserved on: 7^th July, 2022

Pronounced on: 23^rd August, 2022

+

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 192/2022

ROYAL ORCHIDS

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Mandeep Singh Vinaik

with Ms. Anjali Sharma,

Mr. Deepak and

Mr. S.K. Sagar, Advocates.

versus

KULBIR SINGH KOHLI & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Kunal Tandon with

Mr. Jaspreet Singh and

Mr. Manu Bhardwaj,

Advocates.

(M): 9650145159

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

J U D G M E N T

MINI PUSHKARNA, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter

called as “Act”), against the respondents seeking urgent interim orders

for protection to preserve the subject matter of arbitration i.e. property

bearing no. K-1, Basaidarapur, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi.

2. As per the petitioner, the parties entered into a MOU dated

03.03.2022, in terms of which the property had to be developed by the

petitioner at its own cost in lieu of being paid 30% of the sale

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003178

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 192/2022 Page 2 of 20

proceeds. The petitioner paid an advance sum of Rs. 1 crore to the

respondents and the remaining part of the initial deposit were ready

and available with the petitioner. However, the respondents did not

take the same and began to avoid the petitioner.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents have been

deferring their obligation under false pretext. The petitioner has got

information that instead of proceeding with their obligations under the

MOU, the respondents are re-negotiating other deals with respect to

the property in question. It is alleged that the respondents are in

breach of the terms of MOU dated 03.03.2022.

4. It is seen from the record that the two respondents are spouses

and are co-owners of the plot of land and in possession of the free

hold property in question. The area of the plot of land is 757.50 sq

yds. It is the case of the petitioner that being interested in engaging the

services of a reputable builder, the respondents reached out to the

petitioner and expressed a desire to collaborate in the construction and

development of the project, which is subject matter of the present

proceedings.

5. Thus, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 03.03.2022

(hereinafter called “MOU”) was entered into between the parties. The

salient features of this MOU were that in consideration of getting 30%

of total sale consideration of the resultant product and infrastructure

facility, the petitioner would employ its technical expertise and

resources and would bear the cost of construction and development of

the property in question.

6. It was the understanding in the MOU that an initial amount of

This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003178

O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 192/2022 Page 3 of 20

Rs. 1 crore would be paid by the petitioner to the respondents. The

respondents had taken a loan against the security of the subject

property from Yes Bank Ltd. and the balance payable was a sum of

Rs. 40, 291, 247.61/-. It was the understanding that the sum payable to

Yes Bank Ltd. would be paid by the petitioner and adjusted in the

amounts payable as initial amounts to the respondents.

7. Thus, the petitioner has contended that the petitioner paid a sum

of Rs. 1 crore as per understanding of the respondents, which amount

was duly encashed by the respondents. As per the petitioner, it has at

all times been ready and willing to pay the balance amount in

accordance with the MOU. Inf