M L Lakhanpal v. Darshan Lal & Anr

NAVIN CHAWLA, J JANUARY 22, 2018/rv

Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + OMP (COMM) 447/2017 Reserved on: 18th December, 2017, Date of decision: 22nd January, 2018 M L LAKHANPAL ……Petitioner Through: Mr.Mohit Madan, Adv. along with petitioner in person. Versus DARSHAN LAL & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: None CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA 1. This petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Arbitral Award dated 16.08.2017 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, dismissing the counter claim filed by the respondent, however, not awarding any cost of the arbitration proceedings in favour of the petitioner. The challenge of the petitioner is to the non-award of the cost as also to the rejection of the Sole Arbitrator to allow the petitioner to file his Statement of Claim as also rejecting his application seeking extension of time to file such Statement of Claim. 2. The disputes between the parties are in relation to the Collaboration Agreement dated 06.08.2010 executed by the petitioner and his brother, Shri. Ravinder Kumar Sharma (who was not a party in the arbitration proceedings) on the one side, being the owner of property bearing No. E-386, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi (herein referred to as Page 2 the 'Property') and the respondents who were the developers of the said property. 3. The Collaboration Agreement was modified to a certain extent by way of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 05.10.2011. It was further modified by way of an Addendum Agreement dated 20.05.2012. 4. In terms of the above documents, the petitioner was entitled to get the ground floor / upper ground floor, his brother, Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma was to get the First Floor with stilt having two servant rooms with common toilet and a car parking, while the respondent was to get the basement and the second floor and one Ms. Kinshuk Malhotra was to get third floor with terrace alongwith car parking, in whose favour the petitioner and his brother had executed the agreement to sell dated 20.05.2012. 5. The petitioner alleging that the building was not fully completed, however, still the respondent had allowed third parties to enter into the possession of the basement, second and third floor, filed a civil suit being CS (OS) 805/2015 titled ML Lakhan Pal Vs. Kinshuk Malhotra & Ors. inter alia, praying for cancellation / declaration, possession and permanent injunction against the defendants therein. In the suit, Ms. Kinshuk Malhotra filed a counter claim being CC No. 73/2015 claiming specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 20.05.2012. 6. The petitioner also filed OMP (I) 208/2015 under Section 9 of the Act seeking certain interim relief qua the ground floor of the said property. Page 3 7. It is alleged that a civil suit being CS (OS) No. 1565/2015 was also filed by one Mr.Vineet Gupta seeking declaration and specific performance qua the second floor of the said property. 8. On 26.05.2015 the following order was passed in OMP (I) 208/2015: "1. It has been agreed between the parties that the Respondents, will without prejudice to their rights and contentions, pay the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 5 Lakhs by way of a demand draft within a period of four weeks from today. Within the same period in a mutually acceptable time schedule both parties will simultaneously take the following steps: (a) The Petitioner will execute sale deeds in respect of the basement, second floor and the third floor of the property at E-386, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi in favour of the nominees of the Respondents. (b) The Respondents shall hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the ground floor of the aforementioned property to the Petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the Respondents states that the sale deeds are already ready and they simply have to be signed by the Petitioner at the Office of the Sub-Registrar concerned. It is made clear that simultaneous with the Petitioner signing