Delhi High Court - Orders
Kewal Krishan Khera vs Adarsh Kumar Khera & Others on 22 January, 2019
Author: Prathiba M. Singh
Bench: Prathiba M. Singh
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 19/2015
KEWAL KRISHAN KHERA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, Advocate.
(M:9811156437)
versus
ADARSH KUMAR KHERA & OTHERS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Isha Aggarwal, Advocate for R-
1. (M:9810793583)
Mr. A. K. Vashishtha, Advocate for
R-2 with R-2 in person.
(M:9810008639)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
ORDER
% 22.01.2019
1. Vide order dated 12th January, 2011, rental amounts in respect of the Noida property were directed to be withdrawn by Petitioner, Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 in the ratio of 30%, 40% and 30%, respectively. The said withdrawal was permitted subject to deposit of Bank Guarantees to the satisfaction of the Court. Petitioner and Respondent No.1 have withdrawn the amounts. Respondent No.1 has furnished security instead of a Bank Guarantee and has withdrawn the amount. Respondent No.2 has not withdrawn the entire amount and given some FDRs as security for withdrawal of some portion of the amount.
2. Vide order dated 16th January, 2019 passed in OMP 643/2007, the impugned awards dated 13th July, 2007, 12th May, 2007, 28th May, 2007 & 8th June, 2007 have been set aside and a Sole Arbitrator has been appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the parties afresh.
3. In this view of the matter, all parties may file their respective claims before the Ld. Arbitrator. Insofar as the amounts lying deposited in this Court are concerned, Respondent No.2, who has not withdrawn some part of his share, is permitted to withdraw the same along with interest, which has accrued thereon. The security documents be released in favour of the respective Respondents.
4. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the tax liability in respect of the shares of Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have been borne by the Petitioner for rental income and the same ought to be reimbursed to the Petitioner. If that is so, the Petitioner is permitted to move an application before the Ld. Arbitrator seeking appropriate directions.
5. Further, vide order dated 8th February, 2012, keys of the premises of M/s. Vijay Electricals at Door numbers 10065 & 10066, Nawab Gang, Delhi, were directed to be placed on record after preparing an inventory. The said premises are still lying locked even today. Keys of the premises, if lying deposited in this matter, be transmitted to the Ld. Arbitrator by a special messenger. The release of keys, shall be subject to further orders to be passed by the Ld. Arbitrator.
6. It is submitted that the tenant in the Noida property is still retaining the keys. Parties are permitted to approach the Ld. Arbitrator and seek appropriate directions.
7. Matter need not be listed further in Court. Dasti.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
JANUARY 22, 2019/dk