Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Aggarwal And Others vs M/S Parvsnath Developers Ltd And ... on 10 July, 2012
Author: Hemant Gupta
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Rajiv Narain Raina
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 10.7.2012
(1) CWP No. 15163 of 2009
Vijay Aggarwal and others ......Petitioners
vs.
M/s Parvsnath Developers Ltd and another .....Respondents
Present: - Mr. V.K.Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioners
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
(2) CWP No. 10344 of 2010
Kabir Singh and others ......Petitioners
vs.
Union Territory Chandigarh and others .....Respondents
Present: - None for the petitioners
Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate
for respondent No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate
for respondent No. 3.
(3) CWP No. 6964 of 2010
Jagjit Singh ......Petitioner
vs.
M/s Parvsnath Developers Ltd and another .....Respondents
Present: - Mr. V.K.Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
(4) CWP No. 17192 of 2009
Manish Chopra ......Petitioner
vs.
M/s Parvsnath Developers Ltd and another .....Respondents
CWP No. 15163 of 2009
-2-
Present: - Mr. L.M.Suri, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
HEMANT GUPTA, J
.....
This order shall dispose of the above mentioned writ petitions as the common questions of law and facts are involved.
Petitioners are the applicants for purchase of plots-apartments in Housing Scheme to be developed by respondents No. 1 and 2 as a joint venture. In terms of the agreement between respondents No. 1 and 2, the earnest money is to be appropriated to the extent of 70% by respondent No. 1 and the remaining 30% by respondent No. 2. However on account of differences between respondents no. 1 and 2, the project has not gone ahead. Such disputes are pending before the Arbitral Tribunal as well.
Mr. Kaushal, learned counsel representing the Chandigarh Housing Board stated that the Board has refunded their share of the earnest money received from the applicants such as the petitioners. On the other hand, Mr. Talwar states that the amount of earnest money to the extent of 70% of the share of respondent No. 1 has also been paid to the petitioners.
The subsisting grievance of the petitioners is now that they are entitled to interest on the amount of earnest money as well.
Admittedly, the disputes between respondents No. 1 and 2 are pending adjudication before the Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, whether the interest, if any, is payable by respondents No. 1 and 2 is a matter which can appropriately be decided after the Arbitral Tribunal renders its Award. Therefore, we dispose of the present writ petitions with liberty to the petitioners to raise the claim of interest after the Award is CWP No. 15163 of 2009 -3- rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal before the Appropriate Authority or Court according to law.
Disposed of with liberty aforesaid.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 10.07.2012 preeti