M/S Alok Developers Pvt Ltd vs Miss Jasvinder Kaur @ Pinky on 26 February, 2026

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

M/S Alok Developers Pvt Ltd vs Miss Jasvinder Kaur @ Pinky on 26 February, 2026

                          $~78
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CS(OS) 182/2026 & I.A. 5437/2026, I.A. 5438/2026, I.A. 5439/2026,
                                    I.A. 5440/2026
                                    M/S ALOK DEVELOPERS PVT LTD.                                                              .....Plaintiff
                                                                  Through:            Mr. Jeevesh Nagrath, Mr. Vivek
                                                                                      Singh, Ms. Kirti Mewar and Ms. Kriti
                                                                                      Sharma, Advocates
                                                                                      Mob: 7204073750
                                                                                      Email: [email protected]
                                                                  versus

                                    MISS JASVINDER KAUR @ PINKY                                                            .....Defendant

                                                                  Through:            Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Sr. Advocate
                                                                                      with Mr. Moni Cinmoy, Mr. Aman
                                                                                      Dhyani and Mr. Somya Gupta,
                                                                                      Advocates
                                                                                      Mob: 9868088168
                                                                                      Email: [email protected]
                                    CORAM:
                                    HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA
                                                                  ORDER

% 26.02.2026 I.A. 5438/2026 & I.A. 5439/2026 (For Exemptions)

1. Exemptions allowed, subject to just exceptions.

2. Applications are disposed of.

I.A. 5440/2026 (Seeking permission to file and rely upon Video Recordings)

3. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") seeking leave to file CS(OS) 182/2026 Page 1 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

4. In terms of Rule 24 of Chapter-XI of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, it is made clear that electronic records can be received in CD/DVD/Medium, encrypted with a hash value. The said Rule is extracted as below:

"24. Reception of electronic evidence - A party seeking to tender any electronic record shall do so in a CD/ DVD/ Medium, encrypted with a hash value, the details of which shall be disclosed in a separate memorandum, signed by the party in the form of an affidavit. This will be tendered along with the encrypted CD/ DVD/ Medium in the Registry. The electronic record in the encrypted CD/ DVD/ Medium will be uploaded on the server of the Court by the Computer Section and kept in an electronic folder which shall be labeled with the cause title, case number and the date of document uploaded on the server. Thereafter, the encrypted CD/ DVD/ Medium will be returned to the party on the condition that it shall be produced at the time of admission/denial of the documents and as and when directed by the Court/ Registrar. The memorandum disclosing the hash value shall be separately kept by the Registry on the file. The compliance with this rule will not be construed as dispensing with the compliance with any other law for the time being in force including Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872."

5. Accordingly, Registry may receive electronic record in a CD/DVD, so long as it is encrypted with a hash value or in any other non-editable format. Let the CD/DVD containing the documents, be placed in the electronic record of the present suit.

6. Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the plaintiff is allowed to place the documents in a CD/DVD.

7. With the aforesaid directions, the present application is disposed of. CS(OS) 182/2026 & I.A. 5437/2026

8. The present suit has been filed seeking declaration, specific performance, permanent and mandatory injunction and consequential reliefs in respect of the property bearing No. 46-A, Housing Society, South CS(OS) 182/2026 Page 2 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff had entered into agreement with the defendant vide Agreement dated 01st November, 2021, registered on 02nd November, 2021, for the purposes of development of the suit property.

10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that under the principal Agreement dated 01st November, 2021, the allocation of constructed areas was clearly demarcated. The defendant became entitled to the ground floor and second floor (without roof rights), along with proportionate undivided share in the land, while the plaintiff became entitled to the first floor and third floor with full terrace and basement rights, along with proportionate undivided share in the land.

11. Further, the plaintiff agreed to pay Rs. 26,00,000/- to the defendant and to bear the entire cost of redevelopment, including, the statutory dues.

12. It is submitted that pursuant thereto, the defendant executed a Special Power of Attorney ("SPA") dated 01st November, 2021 and a Will dated 02nd November, 2021 in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, a Supplementary Agreement dated 01st December, 2021 was executed, modifying the allocation of rights.

13. It is submitted that under the Supplementary Agreement, the defendant became entitled to the entire ground floor with 22.5% undivided share in land, while the plaintiff became entitled to the first, second and third floors, with basement and terrace rights and 77.5% undivided share in the land.

14. It is submitted that the plaintiff agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- by way of the Supplementary Agreement and to bear the rent of CS(OS) 182/2026 Page 3 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:38:02 alternative accommodation for the defendant during redevelopment. In furtherance of this Supplementary Agreement, the defendant executed various documents in favour of the plaintiff, including, a General Power of Attorney ("GPA") dated 09th February, 2022 and a fresh SPA.

15. Subsequently, it is submitted that the plaintiff undertook redevelopment and completed approximately 80% of the construction. However, thereafter, disputes arose between the parties and the defendant unilaterally executed Cancellation Deeds dated 08th July, 2022 and 21st February, 2023, thereby, cancelling the aforesaid GPA, SPA and Will executed in favour of the plaintiff.

16. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the common order dated 22nd February, 2023 passed by this Court in ARB.P. 200/2023 and OMP(I)(COMM) 54/2023, filed by the plaintiff herein, to submit that the defendant was restrained from creating any third-party interest in the first, second and third floors, as well as the terrace and basement. The disputes were thereafter referred to arbitration on 06th August, 2024, and the aforesaid interim protection was reiterated by the Sole Arbitrator vide order dated 20th February, 2025 vide order dated 20th February, 2025.

17. However, vide order dated 03rd February, 2026, the learned Sole Arbitrator allowed the defendant's application under Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Arbitration Act"), granting liberty to the plaintiff to pursue remedies before the Competent Court.

18. Thus, the present suit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff.

19. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant, on advance notice, submits that plaintiff has pleaded certain cash transactions in CS(OS) 182/2026 Page 4 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

20. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant further submits that the defendant, by registered Sale Deeds dated 20th February, 2026 and 23rd February, 2026, has sold the first floor, second floor and basement of the suit property.

21. Learned Senior Counsel for the defendant further submits that third floor, along with terrace rights, has not been sold to anyone.

22. In response, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff is in possession of the basement, first floor and second floor of the suit property and that the Sale Deeds, executed by the defendant are fraudulent. He submits that the basement, first floor and second floor of the suit property are under lock and key of the plaintiff, including, the third floor and terrace.

23. However, the aforesaid facts, including, the cash transactions are denied and disputed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the defendant.

24. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, let the plaint be registered as suit.

25. Issue summons. Summons is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the defendant.

26. Let written statement be filed by the defendant, within thirty (30) days from today. Along with the written statement, the defendant shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which, the written statement shall not be taken on record.

27. Liberty is given to the plaintiff to file replication, if any, within thirty (30) days from the receipt of the written statement. Along with the CS(OS) 182/2026 Page 5 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:38:02 replication filed by the plaintiff, the affidavit of admission/denial of the documents of defendant be filed by the plaintiff, without which, the replication shall not be taken on record.

28. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.

29. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of the documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.

30. This Court notes the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution Versus B. Gunashekar and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 793, wherein, the Supreme Court has directed as follows:

"xxx xxx xxx 18.1. Further, through the averments made in the plaint and in the agreement, the respondents/plaintiffs have claimed to have paid huge sum towards consideration by cash. It is pertinent to recall that Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, was introduced to curb black money by digitalising the transactions above Rs. 2,00,000/- and contemplating equal amount of penalty under Section 271DA of the Act. As per the said provisions, action is to be taken on the recipient. However, there is also an onus on the plaintiffs to disclose their source for such huge cash. The Central Government thought it fit to cap the cash transactions and move forwards towards digital economy to curb the dark economy which has a drastic effect on the economy of the country. It will be useful to refer to the Budget Speech during the introduction of the Finance Bill, 2017 and the extract of the memo presented with the Finance Bill, 2017, which lay down the object:

Budget Speech:

"VII. DIGITAL ECONOMY

111. Promotion of a digital economy is an integral part of Government's strategy to clean the system and weed out corruption and black money.

It has a transformative impact in terms of greater formalisation of the economy and mainstreaming of financial savings into the banking system. This, in turn, is expected to energise private investment in the country through lower cost of credit. India is now on the cusp of a massive digital revolution.

.....

Promoting Digital Economy CS(OS) 182/2026 Page 6 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:38:02

162. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) set up by the Government for black money has suggested that no transaction above Rs. 3 lakh should be permitted in cash. The Government has decided to accept this proposal. Suitable amendment to the Income-tax Act is proposed in the Finance Bill for enforcing this decision."

Extract from Memo of Finance Bill, 2017 "Restriction on cash transactions In India, the quantum of domestic black money is huge which adversely affects the revenue of the Government creating are source crunch for its various welfare programmes. Black money is generally transacted in cash and large amount of unaccounted wealth is stored and used in form of cash.

In order to achieve the mission of the Government to move towards a less cash economy to reduce generation and circulation of black money, it is proposed to insert section 269ST in the Act to provide that no person shall receive an amount of three lakh rupees or more,--

(a) in aggregate from a person in a day;

(b) in respect of a single transaction; or

(c) in respect of transactions relating to one event or occasion from a person, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account. It is further proposed to provide that the said restriction shall not apply to Government, any banking company, post office, savings bank or co- operative bank. Further, it is proposed that such other persons or class of persons or receipts may be notified by the Central Government, for reasons to be recorded in writing, on whom the proposed restriction on cash transactions shall not apply. Transactions of the nature referred to in section 269SS are proposed to be excluded from the scope of the said section. It is also proposed to insert new section 271DA in the Act to provide for levy of penalty on a person who receives a sum in contravention of the provisions of the proposed section 269ST. The penalty is proposed to be a sum equal to the amount of such receipt. The said penalty shall however not be levied if the person proves that there were good and sufficient reasons for such contravention. It is also proposed that any such penalty shall be levied by the Joint Commissioner.

It is also proposed to consequentially amend the provisions of section 206C to omit the provision relating to tax collection at source at the rate of one per cent. of sale consideration on cash sale of jewellery exceeding five lakh rupees.

These amendments will take effect from 1st April 2017." However, when the Bill was passed, the permissible limit was capped under Rupees Two Lakhs, instead of the proposed Rupees Three Lakhs. When a suit is filed claiming Rs. 75,00,000/- paid by cash, not only does is CS(OS) 182/2026 Page 7 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:38:02 create a suspicion on the transaction, but also displays, a violation of law. Though the amendment has come into effect from 01.04.2017, we find from the present litigation that the same has not brought the desired change. When there is a law in place, the same has to be enforced. Most times, such transactions go unnoticed or not brought to the knowledge of the income tax authorities. It is settled position that ignorance in fact is excusable but not the ignorance in law. Therefore, we deem it necessary to issue the following directions:

(A) Whenever, a suit is filed with a claim that Rs. 2,00,000/- and above is paid by cash towards any transaction, the courts must intimate the same to the jurisdictional Income Tax Department to verify the transaction and the violation of Section 269ST of the Income Tax Act, if any, (B) Whenever, any such information is received either from the court or otherwise, the Jurisdictional Income Tax authority shall take appropriate steps by following the due process in law, (C) Whenever, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and above is claimed to be paid by cash towards consideration for conveyance of any immovable property in a document presented for registration, the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar shall intimate the same to the jurisdictional Income Tax Authority who shall follow the due process in law before taking any action, (D) Whenever, it comes to the knowledge of any Income Tax Authority that a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- or above has been paid by way of consideration in any transaction relating to any immovable property from any other source or during the course of search or assessment proceedings, the failure of the registering authority shall be brought to the knowledge of the Chief Secretary of the State/UT for initiating appropriate disciplinary action against such officer who failed to intimate the transactions.

xxx xxx xxx"

(Emphasis Supplied)

31. It is to be noted that the averments with regard to the cash transactions have been made in Paras 16 and 17 of the plaint, which are reproduced as under:

"xxx xxx xxx CS(OS) 182/2026 Page 8 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:38:02 xxx xxx xxx"

32. Further, the plaintiff has also attached a document pertaining to the cash transaction, which is reproduced as under:

CS(OS) 182/2026 Page 9 of 12

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:38:02

33. Considering the judgment of the Supreme Court and the aforesaid facts as pleaded in the plaint, the cash transactions are required to be verified by the Income Tax Department.

34. Accordingly, the plaintiff is directed to file on affidavit the details of the Assessing Officer ("AO"), PAN Number, along with the last Income Tax Return ("ITR") of the plaintiff.

35. Keeping in view the mandate of the Supreme Court, issue notice to the AO of the plaintiff, to verify the cash transactions pleaded by the plaintiff, as reproduced hereinabove. The AO of the plaintiff shall submit a Verification Report before this Court within eight weeks.

36. The plaintiff is directed to remain present before the concerned AO in this regard, with all necessary documents, as and when called.

37. Issue notice to Standing Counsel (Income Tax), for information and CS(OS) 182/2026 Page 10 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

38. The Registry will ensure that notice is issued to the AO as well as Standing Counsel (Income Tax) within a period of two weeks, from today.

39. This Court takes into consideration the submission made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiff, as noted above, that the plaintiff is in possession of basement, first floor, second floor and third floor along with terrace of the suit property, which is disputed by learned Senior Counsel for the defendant.

40. Accordingly, Mr. Devendra Kumar, Advocate, Enrolment No. D/3146-A/2010, Mob: 7289854802, Email Id: [email protected], who is present in Court, is appointed as a Local Commissioner and the following directions are issued:

i. The Local Commissioner is directed to visit the suit property, i.e., property bearing No. C-46-A, Housing Society, South Extension Part- I, New Delhi, admeasuring 200 sq. yards today itself. ii. The learned Local Commissioner shall be accompanied by the representatives of both the plaintiff and defendant. iii. The representatives of both the plaintiff and defendant are directed to carry their respective keys. They shall attempt to open the locks with their respective keys in the presence of the Local Commissioner. iv. The Local Commissioner shall upon such visit and inspection, file his report, clearly recording as to with whose keys, the locks have opened on each of the floors, i.e., basement, first floor, second floor, third floor and the terrace.

v. For the said purpose, the Local Commissioner shall also be entitled to take requisite photographs and file the same along with his report.

CS(OS) 182/2026 Page 11 of 12

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:38:02 vi. The fee of the Local Commissioner is fixed as Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lacs Only), which shall be borne by the plaintiff and the defendant, in equal proportions.

vii. The fee of the Local Commissioner shall be given by the respective parties today itself, during the course of the day.

41. Considering the submissions made before this Court, the status quo as regards possession and title of the third floor and terrace shall be maintained by the parties. Further, status quo as regards the possession of the entire suit property shall also be maintained by the parties, till the next date of hearing.

42. Issue notice in I.A. 5437/2026. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the defendant.

43. Let reply be filed within a period of four weeks.

44. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks, thereafter.

45. Let the report of the Local Commissioner be filed within a period of two weeks, from today.

46. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 28th April, 2026.

47. List before the Court on 22nd July, 2026.

MINI PUSHKARNA, J FEBRUARY 26, 2026 ak CS(OS) 182/2026 Page 12 of 12 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 02/03/2026 at 20:38:02

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders

M/S Alok Developers Pvt Ltd vs Miss Jasvinder Kaur @ Pinky on 26 February, 2026