Delhi High Court - Orders
Sangita Jain & Ors vs Anuj Jain & Ors on 18 April, 2022
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P.(I) (COMM.) 405/2021 & IA No.16532/2021
SANGITA JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. Siddharth Yadav, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Nikita Mangla, Advs.
Versus
ANUJ JAIN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mukul Talwar, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Aman Bhalla, Mr. Vivek Sandhu, Mr.
Rahul Kumar & Mr. Aman Tehlan,
Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
ORDER
% 18.04.2022
1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (hereafter 'the A&C Act'), inter alia, praying as under:
"a) Restrain the respondent no. 1, 2 and 3, their men, agent, representatives, attorney, etc. or anyone acting or claiming on their behalf from selling, transferring, alienating and I or creating any third party interest in Property bearing no. C-8, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. The respondents may further be restrained from raising any construction or in any manner changing nature of the property in question;
b) Restrain the respondent no. 4 from selling, alienating, creating any third party interest and / or raising any construction or in any manner changing nature of the Property No. 249-A, Udyog Vihar, Phase-4, Gurugram, Haryana;"Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:22.04.2022
2. The petitioners are natural heirs of the deceased - Mr Mukesh Jain. He was a partner in a firm carrying on business under the name and style of "Perfect Assets". The Partnership Deed includes an Arbitration Clause.
3. The respondents claim that there is no surviving dispute in respect of the Partnership Deed as the same was settled in terms of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 17.07.2021 and the firm was dissolved. The respondents admit that the parties had agreed that a payment of ₹47 crores would be made to Mr Mukesh Jain. It is further claimed that in terms of the MoU, respondent no.1 is entitled to sell the property bearing no. C-8, Green Park Extension, New Delhi. Admittedly, a sum of ₹2.5 crores was paid to Mr Mukesh Jain. However, there has been a default in payment of the second tranche of ₹2.5 crores, which was due and payable on or before 15.10.2021. The remaining amount of ₹42 crores is required to be paid on or before 01.06.2022.
4. In addition, the respondents also claim that respondent no.1 is the heir to the estate of Mr Mukesh Jain by virtue of a Will. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the amount payable to Sh. Mukesh Jain under the MoU. This Court had also noted in the order dated 13.12.2021 that although the respondents are relying on the MoU, they had disputed the validity of the same in response to the notice issued by the petitioner.
5. The petitioners do not dispute the execution of the MoU.
6. On 28.3.2022, Mr Talwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the property bearing no. C8, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, is sufficient to cover the claims of the petitioners.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:22.04.2022The only objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners to the said contention was that the respondents have created an encumbrance by leasing a part of the said premises. To allay this apprehension, Mr Talwar had stated that the said lease would be cancelled. It is relevant to refer to the order passed on 28.03.2022, which reads as under:
"1. Mr. Talwar, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents states that the property bearing no. C8, Green Park Extension, New Delhi is sufficient to cover the claims of the petitioner. He states that part of the said property was leased to the related party. The said lease would be cancelled.
2. He states that the respondents would undertake to keep the property unencumbered. The respondents would not sell the property except with due information to the petitioner on a condition that ₹44.5 crores from the sale proceeds would be deposited with the Registry of this Court to secure the claims of the petitioner.
3. Let an undertaking to the aforesaid effect be filed before the next date of hearing.
4. List on 18.04.2022.
5. Interim orders to continue"
7. Mr Talwar submits that in terms of the order dated 28.03.2022, the lease in respect of part of the aforesaid property is cancelled. He, on instructions on behalf of the respondents, undertakes that the aforesaid property shall remain unencumbered. In addition, he states that the respondents will not sell the property in question except with due Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:22.04.2022 information to the petitioners and shall ensure that a sum of ₹44.5 crores from the sale proceeds will be deposited with the Registry of this Court to secure the claim of the petitioners.
8. In terms of the order dated 28.03.2022, Mr Talwar has handed over an affidavit to the aforesaid effect and the same is taken on record. He further states that a scanned copy of the same has been filed with the Registry of this Court.
9. In view of the above, no further orders of interim measures are required to be passed in this petition.
10. The interim order passed on 13.12.2021 is vacated.
11. It is clarified that all rights and contentions of the parties are reserved. It is clarified that this will not preclude the parties from claiming such reliefs as they are advised before the Arbitral Tribunal including any measures of interim protection. Any amount deposited by the respondents with the Registry of this Court pursuant to sale of the property bearing no. C8, Green Park Extension, New Delhi, shall abide by further orders that may be passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
12. It is necessary to mention that the order dated 28.03.2022, whereby the aforesaid interim measures of protection were proposed, was passed with the consent of the counsels. While the learned counsel for the respondents confirms the same; the learned counsel for the petitioner is now no longer willing to stand by the same.
13. Notwithstanding the same, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:22.04.2022 arrangement shall sufficiently protect the interest of the petitioners at this stage.
14. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J APRIL 18, 2022 'gsr' Click here to check corrigendum, if any Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:Dushyant Rawal Signing Date:22.04.2022