High Court Karnataka High Court

Brig. Subhash Chandra Sharma vs M/S Ind Sing Developers Pvt Ltd on 8 March, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Brig. Subhash Chandra Sharma vs M/S Ind Sing Developers Pvt Ltd on 8 March, 2010
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
" "{-By E\.;3'feS5'.':~E\i a! iina. M aye "G"-ow"c% a fo r

.;-- 'M/s.1:*id S§._'ng-Bevelopers Pvt.L%:d.
 A.company';.registered under the Companies
 'Actn, ?e9S6 ,'"having its Regd, Office
  ;é\..E F\i_o.';2!)8, West Ministers' Compiex
_ eCu"nn'm'g'ham Road

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 83"" DAY 0? MARCH, 2o1_Qi"7':'%":.5%%ej'fku
BEFORE H 'V  
THE HOMBLE MRJUSTICE MOHAMAJé'H?WT#;NA§A<§Uasfig.,_in :'
C.M.P. No.3.oQ/2o'Oe9s%V% 'e--   %A * «%
BETWEEN:   V
1. Brigsubhash Chand   
S/o.VaEd Prakash Sharmaa" ' V ' =
Aged 59 years   V
2. Ms.Amita      

W/0 . Bi rd $uba..s  a'nd\.+.a_ sham;  A
Aged 53 y'e_fc}r:;i_ ;_ " ' .   

Both ere ._r/axt'.'%£~e¢;«V1_:O2»  _
Abrar Matrushri /3x;j:ar'€':2fa_eée1-a.1:s..---
25, Aga Abbas ASE R:jad,"'i§isoor

Bang_aiore¥42 ' .V  .. PETITIONERS

, 'Sn' PQ'oyay"ye: & C0., Advs.,)

   

 



 respoiadent.

Banga!ore--52
Rep.by its Managing Director
M.E<rishna .. RESPONDENT

(Service of Notice heid sufficient)

This CMP is flied under E3ecti’on’ of’: the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996;,-i~t_oraysi,ng.. that :t._his:_~
Hon’bEe Court may be pieased to app,oii*:~tV a Soio Ar.bi.tra;t’o-r_ ”

to adjudicate upon the subject rn_atterr.of’ dispu:t’e’.,g:betwe§en
the petitioners and the responde–nt”i.iin the ‘i..rjf€iTe_St o-f}’u”stice
and equity. . ”

This CMP coming’ for’;oz:ders.,_*th’i~s_ day the Court
made the foi!owing:– ‘ ” -.

Resoond’e’rirp.eV_h3’as’«re’fu_sed the notice and hence
service o’f’vv.gnoticeVi’aA’ h’e*i–r_3i.sufficient as against the
V ‘Eearned counsei appearing on behaif of

thepe%titEone:ii.siV’and perused the records.

V”

2. Petitioners and the respondent entered into an

agreement of saie of a residential fiat for afisaie

consideration of Rs.84,00,000/~. However,

to the petitioners, in the agreement _Qf:’saie.A_1fit'<_

mentioned as Rs.60,00,000/-1:

Rs.39,00,D0O/- is said to hav_e tabeen midday

petitioners to respondent. was paid
by cash and the remai*n.E:ii’ig ‘éagr:’ij_oi.Jn’t’;of’Rs.15,00,000/W
was paid by twoV’che.:;;’ue-sfi$i’o’.s§’236621 and

23662. Pe:té~ti”oynefrs*;’. hva:\;:e1i-r.ais.ed’vithWg§””i’oan from HDFC

Bank. the petitioners on

3.4.20D9″that the’barsig”:sfig”ready arid wéiiéng to sanction

_ an an;io”unt oi’ RsV_iV6(1],O(i,OOO/– to purchase the fiat. On

petitioners have sent a registered

iiet.ter.Vi~to”‘V”_t»he~ij”respondent’s Managing Director and

*VAuth.orized “Signatory to convey the property in favour

“jofitiieg petitioners. However, the property was not

A”4′”‘~-____”‘i’.”<:o"i;iveyed. On 2}_.4.20{)9, the resporident's Managing

in/L7

,4,
Director said to have informed the petitioners that the

delay in completing the transaction was due tvo'i',:t"hat

the originai title deeds have been

However, they promised the petitione'r's=–:.f'_i1a't~: theiu if

transaction wouid be complete on :"TiFiV:'t–hiéijj

day, the property was not'c_om/Veyeci the

petitioners, though the peti-tio"ne'i"s?A ar'e"-ireadiiy and
willing to perform their4"p'a_i_rt or

3. Agreen3e:iat_of;_’sVa’l:e .pi=o’dxucVed.xva’t AnnexurewA
to the petgit’io’i_i._.V”of’:.,:thVe said agreement
provides._tha_t being any dispute with

regard to agVre.en:_er’it”ii’or the interpretation or any

;claui_sesAxthereof, the matter be referred to

to the said Clause, the

petit.i44onersms,eint notice to the respondent as per

R”V._’V}3:l’}Afl€Xljl7QA;E, dated 1.10.2009 informing the

A :’res’pd.’rident that the petitioners propose to appoint a

V