Delhi High Court - Orders
Sita Ram & Ors vs Ved Prakash Mittal & Ors on 23 January, 2023
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~40
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ O.M.P. (COMM) 27/2023
SITA RAM & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Satinder S. Gulati, Adv.
versus
VED PRAKASH MITTAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Sandeep Mittal, Adv. for R-1.
Mr.Ankur Sood, Adv. for R-2 & 3.
Mr.Sunil Upadhyaya, Adv. for R-4 &
5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
ORDER
% 23.01.2023
I.A.1357/2023 (exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
I.A.1358/2023
2. The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
3. However, if there is any illegible document, the petitioners shall file a typed copy thereof within a period of four weeks from today.
I.A.1359/20234. The application is disposed of directing the parties to file on record the pleadings/documents before the learned Arbitrator on which they wish to reply upon. It is made clear that the record of the Arbitrator shall not be called for.
CAV 52/20235. As the learned counsels for the respondents have entered appearance and have been heard in response to the admission, the Caveat stands Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Date:25.01.2023 19:05:29 discharged.
OMP(COMM) 27/2023 & I.A.1356/2023
6. Issue notice.
7. Notice is accepted by the learned counsels for the respective parties mentioned hereinabove.
8. Reply, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks from today. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of four weeks thereafter.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to inter-alia the Partnership Deed dated 04.06.1990, which records that the land at Kasar belongs to the petitioners and shall continue to remain so, that is, not being put in the hotch-potch of the partnership. He has further drawn my attention to the issues framed with respect to the said land in paragraph 58 of the Impugned Award, which inter-alia also includes an issue of whether the claims of the respondents on the said land would be barred under the provisions of the Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act, 1988. He submits that the said issue has not been answered by the learned Arbitrator in the Impugned Award.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsels for the respondents placing reliance on a Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.05.1988 executed between the petitioner no.1 and the respondent no.1, submit that it was agreed between the parties that all land purchased, even though in the name of individuals, would be the partnership property. Further, drawing reference to the paragraph 58.47 to 58.48, they submit that the learned Arbitrator has indeed considered the provisions of Benami Transaction Act in the Impugned Award.
11. Prime facie the submissions made by the learned counsels for the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Date:25.01.2023 19:05:29 respondents do not appear to be tenable. As far as the Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.05.1988 is concerned, the same pre-dates the Partnership Deed. The effect thereof had to be considered by the learned Arbitrator. In fact, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out that in paragraph 41 of the Impugned Award, the learned Arbitrator himself has disregarded the said document.
12. On the plea of Benami Transaction, I have considered the paragraphs, attention of which was drawn by the learned counsels for the respondents, however, in my prima facie opinion, the same do not appear to be contrary to the provisions of the Act.
13. By the Impugned Award, the petitioner is to inter-alia transfer the property in dispute in favour of the respondent no.1. In view of the above, there shall be a stay on the enforcement of the Impugned Award, and the parties shall be governed by the interim order dated 17.11.2003 passed by the learned Arbitrator, till further orders.
14. List on 18th May, 2023.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J JANUARY 23, 2023/Arya Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUNIL Signing Date:25.01.2023 19:05:29