Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

16. First on a factual note, in the earlier round of arbitration, Appellants preferred an application under Section 17 of 1996 Act seeking interim injunction restraining Pivotal from alienating and encumbering the subject land in earlier arbitration. This application dated 28.04.2014 was dismissed by the Arbitrator vide order dated 02.07.2014 inter alia on the ground that this Court had not restrained the Respondents in O.M.P. No. 1057/2013 from creating third party rights on the subject land and interest of the Appellants was protected by observing that any steps taken pursuant to the Assignment Deed will be subject to outcome of the proceedings. Arbitrator was also of the view that Appellants had not made out a case for grant of injunction. Second application was filed on 14.08.2017 again seeking order of status quo with regard to sale/transfer and/or parting with possession of the units in the project developed by Pivotal. This application was dismissed on 21.09.2017 by the Arbitrator holding that: earlier application seeking the same relief was dismissed on 02.07.2014; Forgings had filed a suit for declaration and injunction with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction against alienation/creating third party rights in the suit property, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge on 02.08.2017 along with similar applications in three other suits; and in the garb of invoking jurisdiction under Section 17 of 1996 Act, Appellants were directly or indirectly seeking the same relief which was declined by this Court and by the Arbitrator as also by the Civil Judge, Faridabad vide order dated 02.08.2017. Arbitrator also observed that on the date of filing the application on 14.08.2017, Appellants were aware of the fate of the application before the Civil Judge as also of the order of this Court dated 12.02.2015 and despite having full knowledge that prayer for injunction was rejected, Appellants omitted to make a mention of these orders in the application to somehow persuade the Arbitrator to entertain their prayer for restraint from alienating 10% of the developed property, by misleading. This application was dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-.