Delhi High Court - Orders
Mohan Investments And Properties ... vs Sai Aaina Farms Private Limited on 21 February, 2019
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~34
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 54/2019
MOHAN INVESTMENTS AND PROPERTIES PRIVATE
LIMITED ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Sanjeev Puri, Sr. Adv with
Mr.Kamal Shankar, Mr. Abhishek
Avasthi, Mr. Parag Maini and Mr.
Abhimanyu Chopra, Advs.
versus
SAI AAINA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED ..... Respondent
Through None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 21.02.2019
I.A. No. 2708/2019
1 Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 54/2019
2 This is a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short '1996 Act'). The petitioner has claimed several reliefs in the captioned petition. It is the petitioner's case that it had entered into a Collaboration Agreement (in short 'C.A.') with the respondent on 18.08.2017.
2.1 The petitioner further avers that on that very date, a Special Power of Attorney (in short 'S.P.A.') and a Power of Attorney (in short 'P.O.A.') was also executed. I am informed that the S.P.A. and the P.O.A. were executed in favour of the respondent. 3 The petitioner claims that the C.A., broadly, involved development of an Affordable Group Housing Project (in short 'Project') over the land owned by the petitioner. The land, according O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 54/2019 Page 1 of 3 to the petitioner, admeasures 6.1125 acres of land. In addition thereto, Mr. Puri says, additional parcel of land admeasuring 2 acres has been handed over to the respondent for constructing a road. Both parcels of land referred to above are situate at Village Badshahpur, Gurugram, Haryana (in short 'subject land'), 4 According to the petitioner, in consideration of the respondent being permitted to develop the subject land, a sum of Rs.75 crores was to be paid to the petitioner, in the manner, set out in Schedule V of the C.A. The petitioner avers that apart from Rs.5 crores, given at the time of execution of the C.A., and another sum of Rs.5.5 crores given thereafter, there has been no further payment. 5 In sum, it is the petitioner's case that the timelines set forth for payments in Schedule V to the C.A. have been breached. The record shows that the petitioner, being aggrieved, has terminated the C.A., S.P.A. and P.O.A., vide its notice dated 27.12.2018. 6 It appears that the respondent has replied to the aforementioned notice of termination. This reply is dated 05.01.2019. 7 Mr. Puri, who, appears for the petitioner, draws my attention to the reply wherein there is a suggestion that the respondent has already sold the space which would be available once the Superstructure is built, to third parties. Mr. Puri says that the respondent, in breach of clause 5 of the C.A.; has, obviously, retained the moneys received on the sale of the space. Clause 5 of the C.A., according to Mr. Puri required opening of an Escrow Account, upon the same being O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 54/2019 Page 2 of 3 designated by the petitioner.
7.1 According to Mr. Puri, the petitioner has already communicated to the respondent the particulars of the designated account. 8 In these circumstances, in my view, the matter requires examination.
9 Issue notice to the respondent. In addition, service be effected via private mode as well.
10 In the meanwhile, the respondent will maintain status quo as to the possession and construction of the subject land. Furthermore, there shall be no sale of any space till further orders of the Court. The reply, if any, that the respondent may want to file, shall, apart from anything else, indicate the details of the sale. The petitioner is given liberty to place this order before the concerned statutory authorities as well.
11 Renotify the matter on 17.07.2019.
12 Dasti.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J FEBRUARY 21, 2019 A O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 54/2019 Page 3 of 3