Loading...

Sri Chirag vs M/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Chirag vs M/S Eureka Builders on 12 March, 2009
Author: A.S.Bopanna
 

SM'? SUNITA

WXO GULABCHAND DANE}

AGE 53 YEARS, OCCi;HOUSEW1F'IEi

R/O SHANTINACEAR, KESHWAPUR
HUBLE

SHRI MAHE$I~1 KEEMAR

S/O VELJE KANJE

AGE 64 YEARS, OCCEEJSINESS ,_ _
R;"O 54,112, SANS VILLA, RO.P§D._II NEAR "
MEDLERE HOSFITAL, KESHW.A§'"i~J,_i? .
HUBU  é'

SM'? 1'-IIALABAI
W/C3 PRAFUL Sfififl , .L  j
AGE 51 YEARS, OCC:H{)E3SEWE'FE

mo NARAYAN?URA  
AHMEi33AB1'_a,D--.¢«_  I

sHR£..m:.:_,:P~V;;U3;L§a§z,
S/cv>vEL;iV!€ANJ::V' _ . .
A30 gPPEL§..AN'£"S

 {'g3;s;7:ii:'iz*£i1'RC;2\:, Sax c"éi:NsEL, Sn: (3 M PO{3N§.GH£% AEJD

» _'s..r~;;:;:I{e;xss: 1&5' mm, mvs FGQ LEXPLEXUS, AW. 3;

AM

_>:--.«

z~5;'.s"§:s_",:§E§<;a. BLEELSERS

T {3F'F'£';Zi E AT MOPEQK '$E~§15sFvfBERS

~ AA  S--'?ATI¥L3N ROAD, HUBLI DUE.-Y EEPRESENTED
 " ._B'i ETS PARTNER
 SHE} SHVAM RAEVIASA JARTARGHAR

351% SHYAM RAMASA J.%RT§§§GHAR
&GE 54 YEARS; OC5C:PAR'I'NER

EMS EUREKQA §L?¥L{)E§S

S1/C} EVEGHAK CZHAMBEFES

J

'a



U.)



STATEGN RGAD, HUBL1

KASHIEEUATH RAMACHANDRASA NERANJAN
AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS

OCCFARTNER

MXS EUREKHA BUILDERS

R,/O MOHAK CHAMBERS

STATION ROAD, HUBL1

SHRI If R' E3'I33A1~¥L.AD
AGE ABOUT :36 YEARS

OCC;PAR'E'NER ws EUREKE-IA BUILDERS   

¥?;'0 MOHAK CHAMBERS   
STATEON ROAII}, HUBLI 1

sm' KAMALAVVA _

wxo KYATANAGOUDA F'A'I'iE,,'~.._ 
AGE 75 YEARS, OCC;AGR1CLiL'I"'LIRE
R,fO KESHWAPUR  .
HUBM

F'A1--;;:1Qz~,Aé: <}:":p.g"V% "  _ - .
S/O KYATANAGOE3 DA 3~m';_L
AGE 3.5 Y3?$AF<"S, 0CC_;AQR'iCULT{}RE

R/0 KES_HWAPUR  '

}:7I'E...:FII3;:I.IE  A ' V

-.?._§ BAsA;--NAGOUDA PATEL
~ T 'M332. f_?'1..Y"E'.'_A3?.S, O€1C;AGRICUL'E'U§%E
._ /C» Kasyzwgwg
A '2~41iJBLI~j; 

uE3H§,Nff.i§4ASHEKAR MARIGGUD& Pt3s"i'iL

AGE371 YEARS

AA '  ;C3CC;AGR£CUL'£'UR§3

?
MAREGOUDA DYAMAMAGOQ 13;, .?M:'L _
AGE 56 YEARS ' _  5 _   , 
OCC;AGRICUL'¥'URE;

mo KESHWAPU V .

HUBL1  V  

AGE 51 ::YEA_:?s'*~  _ 
OCC;AGR1CUI;TURE'  
R/G'*Ki3SH%VAP"G;R. *
HUSH '~* 2

ESE-{WA RA.é:;::L5:§3~._.L>Y§a1»1}*a1§}n;G<§£3 lib; 'P.ea::'*:L

c1»~uVé;1s:D'{2*A:ar:i;é:~es:§{;«:.§i;:{}:3AsANAGou SA PATEL
AGE'; 6':';"~ YaTL'-ABS  
L.;<EsHv.?gP*L3R
¢. £fiiUF;§L{  ~ A ..... .. »

" ~ .YA£,LFaP£?£{T;QUDA ggamaeaum PATEL
 AGE'53"YE}A§§.S
-.QCC;A(3_R£(;ULTURE

'A  22;0_;:E;Ls;&wAP1_:R,HUm,1

RAL§£1SHEKARG{3U DA BASANAGOUSA FATEE.
ACTrE---- 48 YEARS

A' ' L '- f.3C:C;AGRiCU 1:11; RE

*  Ti/<3 ycaaawapufi

HUBLI

PRAKASHAGOUDA BASANAGGUM PATEL
AGE: 43 YEARS

éi)CC;AGRICUL'I'URE

E2fO KESHWAHER

HUBLI  RESPGNSBNTS



{By Sri: MAHESH WODEYAR, ADV. F012 C/Rm A'
an': S S KHATEEB, ADV, FOR £2? T0 15    4 
Sri: R B HALE AND Sri: 3 K ANAND, £&,D_Vs 9:312 f%4=f5;§',.5}V"   

THIS APPEAL IS 91153 LI/S. 3?{_13".QF  AA§:::;1*P;AT:PL1C'A*1§i@N No."'3_12*c~:3'-r 0;; THE) FILE
OF' THE PRL, msw. JUQGE, DHAREVAD.1 DIRE~CTEN,ff3 ALL THE
PARTIES TO MAIP¥I'A1Nv'__S'PATL_i:AS _Qr;:~Q :'N_ RELATIGN TO THE',
OWNERSHIP AND P'OSSE'S;S1ON~L__{iF v ':*r%1Ef_ n;%§;*.r.'mo:~: Sci-VEEBULE
PROPERTEES AS ON THA*:i_QAv_ 'F§__L1,_ THE} 'a:;;=g.:r¢--<:LusroN 09' THE
ARBITRATION PR<3§:§;..gDIr§ -  '

§\iI.¥".A. N0.  '_  '_  '
BETWEEN T T

3. 31%: Y':iLLA9?AC%Q%<,jm"  " " 
3,152 BA::.ANmo.Um w§:..:*1;:,

5{Z§.E:'E:53 YEZARS, OCCfi:AGR}CUL'§'URE ag SERVICE,
fig/A1*~KEsHw;s.9;;R,4HUBL:

A . 3 €;H£§E£E}Rfi;SHEKH&R

 S,/_{}v-vPgffA§2'E{3€J'II{j)A PATH.

~ . =I'_.;'a{34E~:7"i_Y1"::§xi13'S,OCC:?xC§R£<':UL"I'UF2E
1 EVA'? 2<:E;'_3I~.i'waPUR, HUBL1

--V 3 §i:;AN ;.m"A R

 s/::~.;:'-mMANAGo:;aA PAHL
~ : AGE:€§4 YEAES, €i)CC:AGE13ICUL'F{§F2IS'F,

  §*gA'r KESHWAPUR, Htjmx

   MAHESH

S] O LATE SAIEASHEVJKGOUDA PA'§'IL
AGESZE YEARS, GCCIAGRZCULTURE
R/AT' KLEt':'sHWA.PUR, HUBLE

J



)0

(Bar M

MARECEOUBA 6

S/O DYAMANAGSUDA PATH,

AG-E:?S6 YEIWS, OCC:AGRECUL'i'URE: 85 smvzcg,
R,/RE' KESHWIKPUR, HUBL1

ISHWARAGOUDA
S/{:2 DYARIEANAGOUDA 9am,    _ 
A<'}"E:51 YEARS, OCC:AGRiC'iUL'TURE 8:; SERVICE,  '
R/AT KESHWAPUR, HUBLI ;  -- --.   -
CHANE}RA£V10}§ANGOUDA

S,/0 BASA{\§A(3«OUDA PATEL ' ..
AGE:65 YEARS, OCC:AGRICUjLTURE1, '
R/AT KESHWAPUR, HLJBLI' .  'V

RAJASHEKHARGOUDA   --
S30 BAsANAGoU2;~A;"?g3TiL.VA" * 
AGE:48 YEARS, 0cc::,9;;;R1c:i;:§*:.;E::?._;»v.% _
R/AT' KESHWALPUR, 1403;:    

?£A Pssiz'-1:.' -
A(3E--:43 as EARs:;V:;ERs
. " -AREL~f§_1"f3TEVREfi PARTNERSHEP E'«*'iR§~£i HAVENG
A , rm R_g::;%:i:e:s**rERE§ apnea AT MO§~£é';§{ cagmgma
'*s?Ai;*£;_R--QN, Sri: N FOR LEXPLEXUS, ADVS FOR 12:2 T0 14;

'---._':*H::;.~;~ APPEAL ES FELED Ufs. am; OF' THE A§BE'I'RA'I'Ei1>N
 4  AND CQRCELEATEGN ACT AGMNSI' THE': GREEK? DATED: 3.9.2007
1  Pasysgn an ARBETREEIQN APPLESATIQN NE}.
 '~{%:3? ma PRL, ms'? JUDGE, DHARWAI),
 .1?za§':"';~Es T0 Ms=.;NTA:N STATUS QUO ifs!'
 ow*NERs:~;:P AND mssgsszm 5.€ ;:»:3A:>"'- '  f~ 
HUBLI, DULY REP BY ITS MANA».M::>HA;< ci:m M$E3a¥ss§

$'I'ATION ROAD, HUBLI

SRI SHYAM RAMASA '¢FA'RTARG:{_HA§2"'-. Lj AA ~ 
man ABOUT 50 YEARS;  " _ 
OCC:PAP;"1'NER     
M/S EUREKzajBu:L13:ERs, i»€OHA~K'~E3U1LDE3RS
STATION Roaxja,'   g  
max;   

SR1 MOHANV»-RAMAs.A ;;,¥A}?'I'§.R£}HAR
AGED"AE30'i§T 4'::.;?F;A:2S1--  '
OG.C:PAR;T}\?EvR_&V    . _'

M/.2; Et;REKA'BL*:mERJ.s, 'M:::«1~iA§< CHAMBERS
S'E'A'I'I<3N-- ROAD "  .   

HUSH' " ' A =

s;:2:";»;AsH1N2;fr:§' §Azv:AcHANDRAsA NIRANJAN

 A§3C'sU'}' 5Gv¥-EARS

CJCC: §5"AR'?NER

»  M;s_VELr1:;~§::{;a_BU£L3g:es, MOHz%K CHAMBERS
. .S'1"3ZTf{I§N R§AHma
AAR'rN3R
' ms EUREK,& BUELQEZRS, MOHAK or-mmgms
 = STATION was
-Vauam

T 9.2: MORAN RUEEMPPA WAL:

AGED ABGUT 56} YEARS
OCQ: PARTNER
MXS EUREKA BIJELEEERS, MO§%:%§{ CHAMBERS

J

7%



 

1E

"ms PETITEQN FILES ms 115 CFC AG£iNS'i' '",!f'A.{4..VE"f51"'_,*'3E§"' 
mmrz; 2a.':=.2<3o7 PASSED ON I,A,N<:;x2 m o.s.--:~1.oj;'~..si2;zV2<3o'r __or¢ 
THE FILE OF' THE E ADDL.CIVEL;"'JL}{}GE.t§r:t'n;;n m'§j*x¥ * 

f3Qtfi» "2.m vagaj11st the order dated
(;3.09.2¥:ro7'-- 'pa$$t:ii&'-~  Appiication No. 3/ 200'?

[k1€:€inaftef"r¢f%:rrc§t§_  No.3jiZQO'7 for short). In MFA

 Ne. ,1:§S99j:2oa'?'Av.:§¢____;»gspo::;denzs Ne. 13 to 19 (hereizlafisr

 ref:::rr&€£ 'Va-,~3 'assignees' for conV5::1ie11ce) have qucstioned the

Said" {:§§,'téIé;i';' '_"_ffl.  No.14061/2037, the mspondents No. 4 1:0

 _ 1.2, file  reyresentafives {ref extzcutants of disputed

 gigrmmszif (hezrzainafiétr referred to as the 'owners' far

 T.;:§.3/2907 am: 0.s.No.52/2:307 mxatéfm the

same subject; mattizr tlmugh under different pr<;:av.isi_m:.§s-  ;}1é'£2T§":

been clubbrzti and heard together anci as    V' 

well as the revision patition are difééposéti ._ofT_b§;' 

osder.

FACTS

IN COMMON

2. The bI”i€f_f§€lCtS an: that the
bufldexs fi§fiiid&’ai31e property bearing
(ITS No.36i gixntas and the property
24 guntas situate at
Ward 1_ A:–j§’fi;»§.*%i£’:«V, :Késhavapur, Hubli, ciaim to haw:

aniertzai» §.;{:l{(}”;’V:1iviv”~E§lVgffi€}:£}Lf§I%IE{. of sale dated 23.83.2081 with the

. ‘<)v.ffit:I:S Vfiafiéily. "fi;ié"v¥C¥1Iiilé.t':I'S also claim that a sum of

been pafiaé by them by paying ii 3:0 the

mrs;?;::z.$rs' .~ . 'E3h%: aszsignees are said. ta be in possession of 1:133

V'-».§I*’f’

Pending Arbitraiiong sincs the Zbiifidegrs L36 ‘ j ‘

assignees am seaking Change in

I’€(:0IflS and arc making a.f:te1:t1V1;sts ‘i{3su1:§Lé.iv:Ed.§Van6;. ti*a::zSf¢r the V

propertiag have approachgd thgé—j1tiis.dic:ti0naf ‘fiénsiizfiitt Court in
a petitien flied under””‘Sec§o1_.}i*.V&€} Arbitraiian and
Canciliatjon A<:t,_ ;i9g96 ziféf' £,€£V§Cwi;%'}VV'V"'5§"§'}iCh came ta be
I1umbere§7;"'as I.?&BP«§:*;.;i'-3n.'i3[2£§{)?.""'~*Ff1e ewners as 19961} as tht:
assigneés z§*¢ré 'iiéspaxzdants, R is relavarrt to new

.h€':I'€iiS€if éixafi ffh% -_z*€:2._v{§;s::1}u{}e1}%is eitoxisisting the group of the

«_ 0E7§}*€'E5I:$ iificipée Afi3;:.V__}_é;*j:g:3} repmsfintativss sf {ha executants cf

agi'ci?,1n«§:;3;i$':%}Ss:1,,_ 11: the said petition, €116: gerzuinenesa of tbs

is disputed by contendiflg that {ha signed

'V have fimn usad ta create the agrmtment as well as

x V' .a€;kn§::wIéfigment of that eaasidcrafisiah Simufianemlsky, G113 cf

itspondents 1:9 the Saié pctitien, W119 5,3 the son of

~ Easanagguda 9&3': fxlefi ma suit in 0§s,:~§e.5–2/ ma? seeking far

a judgment and decrea ta {itzclam 1:113 agpeemeni 0f S318 dated

J

'1

13%

23.63.2001 alleged to have bean executeti by

as mncacted, sham, begus, unanfezmeabla in 1ai$e*,:: i}3.{¢;Tg£V: 1,

and void and not hintiring on the

consequential releifs of injuxlmiesn a;a-__ fiimii as _~;§.eCLarat};o'1; Vfe_V

declare the Izatice datsd :5. :1;2.§§a iséueg' 'a3.§I:"'_t1¥€:\Vv jt§ eVi'e'§§}da:1f'

N<;2'9 {Arbitrator} on tft1e.if.é:-agis Q33 "i}:1 _$a£t:§5e’3;:. thfiéiismisvgai 01″ the appiicaiion mekimg I’€f€1’€flC€

‘t§2V’ar}:gi”;::j3;£ic§za«””i3_ bging qusstiouad by the builder whs is ‘£116

dfiféiidarét -iii}. suit.

x 3;” Heard Sri meg. R011 and Sri Kiran V Ron, bsarrieé

far thfi assignefis, Sri Prakash K Jawaikar, learnéri

Tfiauzzsei far tha buiiders, S;-:2 RB, Kaifz and 3111 3,3, gzghatem

laarned Counsel fer fizz? I’t:’fS§€C¥IJ:V€ awners.

I

f:

COIITEHTIGHS IH COMMQN 3

4. Theugh the I’€S}3€Ci;iV€i learned Counsel

hemfl at iength, the cendensed f<;m:n..§3f 3%.? :1:§fi,»3Zc%':'f3., ~ 1

summaty of thc commtztions urgcii 211253;? '?ie:a'r::1édV_ {ZZ0Vi;f1–$é3?.1br

the assignees is fustly Wifli._.i\i3.g81'd '-'E0 fi1e' _ IA18;,j{L1I'.f;V {sf iii:-.:::

prcmerties beirxg zmxtan proper'ti§:s;VVVig,f:ii{:ei%s :§g(:%..,” (heremafter referred

to as ‘Act of 1874’) and 3;£r:;°t:I:1e ieasa granted

for 19:5. The iegai effect (}f the lease
grantttd ‘Vi.0Ia’ti,0«i”1 :3f S of the Act of 18?4 has btszzzn

fefeitfaicd to is cantendefi that the Ectase W0111€3.

« “b€<§§;§é" '$*0iiiA.pn tlxéfdwéatlx cf the original iessozs and as such

2 waiarzdars wauld have right ta recaver

;3:«”*»gs3:c:’-:s$;’V~:>.Tr.§L’_ ‘jltha lands within 12 years as per Afiicle 3344 of

{ha Lizgiiation Act 1938 (hersinaftfir mferred ‘£20 as ‘Aci 03”

Hence, it is aantcnded that the succeeding Watandars

V. §§’0111d 1003:: al}. rights if the suit is not filed within the period 5f

{imitation and the right $3136 and ifiterest would vest with the

parser; in wrcngful possesaian of that suit garoperty by virtue {sf

1

flu

E6
Sectien 28 of the Act of 1908. The date f death of the iessors

laie Adveppa Gouda and late Marigouda is also 1’e:fr»:t_’_1″€d to

indicate this aspect. The dacisions in the case of :EL:}’*{:f}vl’RA

BAX AND ANOTHER’ —vs» THE TAHISILQR, Hamji Tmu 3$;;f.:§:
OTHERS, 1996 (6) ;<.L,,L 339 aname.4¢as;§V$:f"':*2a:{t3' .W<:<£U"j.

KADAM Arm omgag -~vs– GANU §z1*rPi:I§~'KA'B§3;AA§?1 ~_2~,:"?E}:§i3;3 _1

BOMBAY 24 am relied on in _ _V V_ 1

5. Aitematively, it is also L>c»:3;t;Le:1dsc¥’ in vi€W of £116:

c0ming’VViii{£}’Tf§§;’;;€ Ofiices Abolition Aci,
19631 (fifixffiaaiieg; as ‘KVOA Act’), the §I’Gj§}€l”,’t§F

governed £:f:;:ie:- .A§;t ‘–.{:b3f”bLV3.874 stood vcgted in the State

‘~ as }§€r’S$cfi0n 4 of KVGA Act. The relevant data

any person in occupatéan in the lands as

03.1. hthé flsting, other than Watcmdars air: dszfmcd as

12I3a1i’tZ”;1::)f§r:;$€L-if holders. I1: is contended that the Ifigrant as per
“..f§}i’9’if;i$«3’.<31:1VL'$ sf Section 5 of KVOA Act was an 4.9,19'?S anti
% 27z:;,Q27.19s2 in favour of {he legal ham af the efiginal zssgms

" tbs grantfias not being 113 possessian, the rmgmntees were

required to file flit? suit for rtzcmrery sf passessiozi as

J

:3?

cemiemplated under Artickt 65 of Act, 1963. in this regard,

relianctz is piacad. on the judgment in the CRSE 8ABU”‘MALLU

§<m)'1* mvs» DEPUTY COMMISSEONER 3§:Lgg5*;{:V:vi"}j"%T.A':éVD

GTHERS» 19% (2) KLJ 315; V <:HANNANARAs'i_§a;V;A:;%§i' ~»v§§'s¥ '

ABDKTEONAL TAHSIIJBAR BA:xzGrAL;<3'"RE,~.:\;, 1953..{3}.,;§:m”;br§vi3j3;”

5. Tha abave aspgjcfs ha$_r¢ E”;::¢11._»p0nti¢11d£:(i tggii claim that

the assigisazzesi. the property’ hafi perfectfid
their til: xffiiinquishment ciecd executed by

the ;§,*’–»?,ht:.VVai;lcg§€E. agmament of $3112 1191′ am ihéjy’ reguirfié to

‘ézgfijcctvvifiémsgiiés to arbitxafion. ii is alse caxztfindfid that {E16

.V owziém figeci suits in 0.s.r~:os.354;2Q<}4 ané 365/2964 0:1

u1'_1.2Vi304 seeking posgessifin afici the said suits Wars

.' fi.§$*m':issed on 29.C!1.;2'{}0? as bazrred by Law ané as such, iha

"'s:'am€ having aittainad fmafity against 11 piajfififis {hermit}, :10

right can be claimed agaénst; €238 agsigneésg E': is themférz:-:

J

4

£9

bringing about the agmement. Rafarence is I11a{i f3-_’:.!tiQ’ the

S11S§)iCi{)1lS cixcumstaaces of the agreement bein;§”b1*éi1g1_1’i:.j;itg

force. Above all, strong reliance is placed cf»

the I-I011’hle Sugsmme Court in the %:,fa.sti:.,c§f j:’SB_i? ‘

-vs– PATEL ENGINEERING LT,9_ANDAAN’GTHEl2 –1~ ($3)

618 to contend that the .¢b11éid é; all these
aspects of the matter }:u%:i’c21~e to procwd
and as such in the instant would mat have

jurisdiction.

rI_’}’.1€”.VvV£-ii’;Vt”Vgh*;Ij(:V1’t’51’§”IL’E§~_éC1C1I’£’?§;S!;’3(Ii by the learned Counsei for
11113 aSSi§11E¢S~ is in a veiled maxmer by the

1ea1j:p$tI’ Coufi3é1.. for the owners. The awners not

over the property is conceded and it is further

1 builders have obtained signatures on blank

paptzrs assurance of helping the Qwners for recavczy of

“ppsses;sia’3fi of the occuiaants of the lands in qnestion, but

A 3136 of the same have got Hy {he agmctmzmt of saie

_§_;§tad 23.83.2001 azzé the same came t9 the kncawletige of the

V owxicrs easily when there was a public: notice in the newspaper

on 30.8.2005 by the lcgal mivisers of the buiidam indicating

4L

V’:

28

that the Qwners haw: given all right in respect of the property
and the suit in O.S.Nos.364/ 2004 and 36:3’/2004 haci been

filed. A mply notice is contended to have been pubfislgedv on

10.16.2085 and subsequentiy, ma suits were

and as such the: interim order in the naturéfi gimitgd

ABN M31200? is not sustainable} “c¢fit¢fii§ap~«;.éas %

aiso urged by the learned C.0u.1is-t:_l wIiéA.a:§d;1ea:*:Ci’A’ f§>:fi_V<émeT§ of F

Iegai repzttscmzafivesf owner ' pla ;im:2fl' in
O.S.No.52/2007 and '<:;($éE1*:tn:fied§V. . ix;a_:_ :3;.;¢ trial Court was

justifiedvi£iVT:*ej:§§&.tj.n§:;'fLh&: :'é::;:1f:li(:3.2;.1;'<V§hVflfi.Icd under Section 8 of the
Act, mofi flit': original or 3. certifietd copy of

the agreemént. was along with the applicaiien. The

._V$us;§_i§:i0,;:s naturoé '<jf——«{11e agrtemem: was also sought :0 be

~–.t.h€ iearrzed Counsel :0 inciicatc that these

aSpE:£:is {if was Iéghfly notzicefi by the Big} Court.

'I'ht: 4Ce1ms:;~:} placed rfiliance an the judgment of the

f§~Eiozi*b.}¢ éupmme court in LUDHIANA IMPROVEMENT mus'?

–¥.é’g§’2\.i«;/8 “mm? HGMES AND INi1’RAS§’RUCfI”URE «mos SA}?

” ‘(C§ivi1} 103?.

J

-“a

21

8. CI}. ht:-half 0f the builders, it was contcndeé by the
learned Counsel that insofar as thfi grant of the ixlterim ()I'(it’:I”
in ABN N0.3/2007, the Eistrict Judge was justifieti the

éntire issue is now before the Arbitrator and <)1_1_-;°iéEi"t3£:1§;:–..§;x%*s;V1c=:3.*s

as Wei} as assignees have subjccteé thcznsfslvesi' 10 fuss:

arbitxation proceedings, they canned; arid. '

the same. It is ooutcizdeii t]:1é'1t_ si:r3.<3e érbi¥t1;é;i;i0.'L:

proccedrings has aktzady co1nmc'é'i1r%éd._a11 fzofiiefifioéis including
the validity of the L'quesfic;£;1ééVV before the

Axbinat6i'"V[as Scc'a'on .16 of the Act and
explaiaéd case which has been relied 011

by tht-_: owfiézs V§Z}1QV}".iE.SAéi=7§;ti'5S"."bhV The learned Counsel 3330 referrcfi

.._t<:.: €i£':C}:§iG£}«-~-Kild contsnded that whexz that was the

Fa-'}1en the axbitraficn is pezilding, all that the

lémiziiéd Judge 133$ cicmef: is :0 protect the interest Gf

the the }3(?5I1C1€fi(i:y of the arbitrat:ion since the:

V' »p::révis'i01V:': contemplates SC). The enly nemsdy open for thc:

' efiynérs and assignees is as contemplated under Sfiction 34 or

" of the: Act after completion of the arbitrati-91:: proceedings

and fie": at this stage; Insefar as the rejecfion cf the appiication

fled under Section 8 of the Act in G111? suit, the 1fiEi'§T'.'.}tj;.L2'5:VV':C4E.:"3"lTf§T:i'»i"-$1

<:o:1i:ent:lad that the: tria} Court wag not justi:§§§:éi~._;i11~

such a conclusion ans} in this regarfii, th(:"1caiI'I1€:d.Ceu11St': }' aim)

pointad out. that one of fl1eT.assigAm:éS.V_ had i3;=.¢'c1- :3. nSi;2'i'$. ':L=r:;V

O.S.N0.3S9/"2096, wherein gar" mgcij _ §:)fVV;V":Vv §V'ét¥iV:1é§;ra1:i(}';i51

relating $0 the agrf:eme1f1i.V_}Va$." inc: suit an
appiication flied by the 8 of the A01; had
been allowed. §..A§:§fixst thcreign was
before the W.P.No.18-42/2067
(GFv'§»C:F*{;%}'"' Gftifil' (iated 2936.200?' has
€1és:mis;%e;i"¥,%he' hupheid the order yasssd by the

trial thg"1;:1}_itt::1" ta ar¥3it;I*a'£ion and as such, the

géssgd '%$§:'«f11{:«.vt1*ia1 Caurt. in the presant suit in all

' ;:¢%spg¢:g%*u¢L§"g%s_im31a:is net sustainable and is hams ta) be sci

zéifiiitlti.

x ‘ .. mgnészs 1?! mm Nos.13599I2007 AND 14061L2j)’G’? :

9. in the light ef thfi rivai -mntentions urged, i ham:
considerad the c-9B.ie11?:io1::s.3 keitping in vim: $15: ambit and

siéepe cf the pmsent iitigation before this Caurt 331 the namrs of

J:

23

proceedings arising at gmszscni. As already f}’;6

Miscellaneous fiirst Appeals relate tn) the o§;_1_é’i*..V:paL$3é:d’A §1; ;a V’

petition under Section 9 of the Act” ‘

No.135SQ/200? is by the _..a_ssigf§it:e:S,_.az1d ;;aS*

contentions urged are €;,xami3;m¢&a’.i:V’fi*thatV.
arises against the crdV’a,§’.V’-“.4:-3?afé ésay other pmceedings “but they

have mer£:1f;.4_V6ieVfeVf1:i_z§ud’._tlzgappiicatiozx filed uncier Section 9 of

thttg in the perusal of the contentiens

‘AtG~,:t’.i:c_ propttrties being watan properties and the

“‘ .c:]aimed snbsequent therttto to contefié that

haifé ‘h é<::)me the awaers of the pmpcrty independent of

3 i*}1E:_.c1aimcd by tbs owners to these pzoceedifigs, in my

woulé not arise for considrzration in the prescnt appeal

" "'–'s$-'hiCh is limitritd to the examinafion of the C{)I'I'{i(:t;If1€SS or

Qthenxzise of the interlcscutory order passed. It "Ls; needless to

i

Vi

mention that the assignees also are made péii"£ies_'–.

preeeedings before the Arbitrator and

View of the relinquishzzaent decal: jj.ti":ejy? 4._hzee;re. '

apmared before the Arbi13f'at03f,_ Henee,

ethenvise of the manner in the Iiiiildexhvsi lttéve entered
into an agreement .r§e'spite Hewners not
having any right over quesfionec} in
the primary whefe is sought to be
enforced of this nature. En the
"it eiéfeii' case Where the assignees
were in. 1&2' such right and it is

not a ci1r:u111stam:e'._wh.ere each preeeeciings, the buiiders

2 _haci_': __for to arbitration ifi View of the clause

w§1ei'e, ::r;é1y:i2e',"'so;;ne examination was required to come tea a

e<iI1ci*sx'siozi–.V–"vzhetJ3er such $z1;it would be maintaizlable or

f whettier hélxssigees shcsuld be xeferzeti to arbitration. But as

:'~a1fe'a{iy netieed in the instant case, the assigees as Wei} as the

are "before the Arbitrator and in Vi€W cf the pending

" érbitiatien, such 3 interim relief by way of interim measure as

V contemgslated under Section 9 01" the fact is sought and as such,

1

‘I

25

the scope of the present appeal cannot be expanded fleeyond

examinatien of that aspect and as such, the eontenfiioeis-éfixzith

regaxfi to the mazmer of right acquired by the

the zelinquishment eieeé, the ézsgeeft

suit for recovery of §}<)ssessionja11d the Vtiecisiofis: Areiied *§;,V

the learned Counsel on these $.”;é.;§’e-trts of ‘i:1;e’ c>I11y

noticed to ifldicate that éi~?q_s2*ou1gi”i1G£:”afiSe. for eénsideration in
the present proceedings. ‘ V t1j16ufg$¥:.1″‘3_uch contentions

are urged, the, a:;is£%g:2_ees parties to the

re}inqui§;ii~iiie’i1t :;:§eeéfé; and 12.4.2006 CEiX]3i]0’§ be

disputed: _ ” ._

V. ‘i’E;,eref<3fe,…§f§1s;: question for censideratjon insefar as

i.i:Le '_i:.-fa regard to the nature of the interlocutory

or{§.ei**§a$$ee?,j as to Whether the same is sustainaifie in the

fVfac:'i:s Aeifeumstanees ef the ease and also as to Whether the

District Judge ought to have eeszclsiéered the

' cezgieiztiens Ieiating t0 the vaiidity 9f the agreemetzt itself whzlie

" eieeiding the petition under Section 9 of the fact keeping in View

A the ciecisicm of the Horfbie Supreme Cam": in the ease of SB?

'9

AND COMPANY which has been extensively renegyoxg.'

the sides. In this regard, it is appmpria{fi.,v'Ato.VVr;o}i§cc u

judgment in the case of SBP .

learned Counsol appearing for_Vt11e

out certain portions of the jtzégfiiofits to iiidioatti ultimate

View and also noticing ..}vas ;*aVvl’$0″xa minority
viaw in the said judgment to vtigtitxlatoly noticed is
the pxincipic _ majority View. in
this regard, the nature of the antler
passed by’ E113 under Section 11(6) of
the Act séziti’ as to Whether the same is

in the i1§itI1}:B’~..§)f”adIl};§I1iSfTLI33,!:iV€ power or a judicia} (>I’€}.€I’, the;

d;_£-:’ci§iort,”i13V.(1o:1bt, is that even though Section 16 of

V”._t}:;¢;”Aot p;t3vid,¢$ ___tI1e power to the Arbitrator to docide with

of the a:rbitra’¢:io;:1 agreement or clause,

is the Hozfbie Chief Justice Wouid have right to

‘A u ‘ théit question before refirxutting the parties to arbifiation.

tfpttxjrpoxt of tho said decision wouifi roveal that under

T :, 7S*:3;C:tion 8 of the Act aiso the juéicial authority wouid have the

n a Eight of noticing tho 3211:} oontmgtions before accepting or

J

O

rejecting an appiication filed seeking }1″€tfEiI’€:i1C6

Though this is my understanding of the 355;.

the }§on’b1c Supmme Court, whethtké” fifif
the instant case, the said decisiqg siicfild be * “

would be mfexrcd by me while: to V
the revision petition ‘vlviisigfar as the
appeals are concerned, :§1b–o§fé;A~’.::?v;§fx%*ithstandi11g the
said decision SESQTAN the situation before
the leasmcd ‘Giza 0f the parties tr: the
1:t) file an agnplicatian for
interim under Section 9 of the Act.

Such he Sought by such party either

;;;_::_: zh_::.z’i::1gV ar%3+£t1*a1 proceedings or at any time after

awaxtl but before it is enfcrced , in the

ifismni: ca3§§’;’j_ pagrtgr beforc: the learned Pr}. District Judge

i.::., 1fihr:i’b_ui}d&r is sacking for interim measure at 3 stage

A {“x:¥1:rTi:i;–g pandency of arbitral proceedings, since net 0111}? the

had issueé a netice dateai (.}S.04,2%6 :0 the 0WI1€I’$

” well as Em: assignees cafljng upon them to axecuté tha sale

deed failing which they Wfilllii enforce the agreement but

L

W

further by flzeir lczzttar dated 10.11.2006 to the

as the assigness have indicated the reference of-._thr: ‘riis;pi1¥:::::fS V’

and the dificrences per£,a1’x1iz1g in thé

23.03.2001 to the Arbitral Tzibunal c;3né1:s_t§ng u

named in tha: said agreement’ Piujéuant t¥1er£at9,:’V_£h3::V<§§§s?nérs as'

we}: as the assign<::es }?}_£:§,Vt fl tlxémsalvtés to the
aI'3Zli"€I'a3ii{)I} proceedings .§§;jcarance thrcugh
their Adv{:ac:at,e. . « I: 1j:'*_-$3 "of tbs: a;rbitrat:io11
proceedings manner, simte the
A1'bitm1'"£:r'ix*3.usV : in the matte): in View
of the §:~'33f'1(i£',"11(ij;'V:'V€§.{'{V:'§LiTé.:t? ffiund of C0111': pi'OCf§€diI1gS, firm

necessity {($23-..see.kii1g §l3._é'E1§faz"im m6:as'u1'e amse as the hllildfifs

_a'13}r::_:t:§'.}1ct;r3_éfi::§1 .t1_";;f:;«'.p:10§erties wouid be s;u¥3–divides:i and

'?:ra5'z1:;fe;?1jcé;3_ '§3}5"»:_h€ assignaizzss Siiléifi they were makrigmg hfiitfiii

aiicemlpts t«~:x§',"::11i;: :' their names in tbs City Survey and Municipal

j Racd§w§s'§' fiiersfoit, in the instani case, it was not appr0pri.ate

x V' ,f{5£* figs Earned Pr}. Dismict Judge to g0 into the said asgccts

— to that: vaiidity er Qthenxgise sf the agrcement since the

is in ths reaim cf the Aybitratnr. in this ragard? the

lsarnefi Pr}. Disirictt Judgs has noticsfi Ciauses 9 of $113 said

I
4:

29

agreement of sale which provided for arbitration

naticing that the piarfics have already s11}3je{:tcd””‘t}::1em§T:’§c§1x?E:a Vf¥:3

arbitration and the procetzdings :h.éiiI€'< .cg)1nme1i dtid "zis

pending before the Sole Arbiuator !3.té u

decision in the case: of SB?’ C{§§aIPA§¥§f

perspective am} has procsttfzdeé {hex éafififill’ 31317113 Of
interim measure. That Judge fias also
taken nets of ear?§éfV’ ‘Q.S,N0.3:3′:7)/ 2006

xvhich had r§:$’aii*;f;*c”i:§?i. w’vj§§§.1’§:a,’2a.4;;§;’;290%’ ({}M~C3PC} , wher£:i3:1

this CoL?;i*i§V’1’i a{£..;}3,$0 ééifiéiusien that the arbitxafion
pmcaediiigs’ have : 2:;{§e;i{“}y_:aktgfiznmenced and would have to
proceezzi furtliar. ‘

V *} _1;v..fiI’§fiér”v4’%§:EC:*e, when the Court had tightly’ came to such

a <§{:1::z <:;V§usi<«3n;",f further question is as to whether the Court

' 'was jfisljfifid Via granting the interim measure of statuswque in

'manfiérr dame. The contention of the learned Counsel

abave with rafemnce 3:9 tlzc judgments which have also

" cited supra is that even While consifiering {ha grant sf

interim meastare under the Act, thrs: same pzinciplas raiating to

I

\'u-

38

gram: of intsrlacutory oréers. viz, the trigzod ‘test would ‘?5_1§§ive to

be fallowcd to §ust:if§; the grant of interim measure

mere prima facie case or 90-ssibie success. is _;1Qt sa.1§i{Eicnt4 b’ut_

that ba}a11c:e: of convenience and iiregarablé i;1§«ur}-* a1,:so.V;~eg’:.i:ix’t:’é;

ta ba COI}.$id€i’€d.

12. Though, am ;:3ointed _Q’ii3;V§3y flizei fo1*

the assignees, the iznyuggzed {>rd¢_rx:dQe’s_._vno£hixidigatcviia detailed
ciiscussion 021 $1131′ aspe€:’:., 3esz}ia€ be considered is

whsthmj ‘1’:a;.:a.§s.z::”e :§i;;f” gI’£{1i:iéti’Vis justified and the m>r1~
gram: 0:” Vihe’ *i3I”?3€1’V{)£’:E’;’:£:’>§i'{1}._§~§.§:’¥.;.Q woulzzi have resulted in iI1j1§iI”j_y’

tr) the pe:i1a5::¢r’v:uV:he’~.§ee::i9n 9 petition 1.232., the buildmr. In

* ._t_hi$ w11€1:Iir3r–..tI::<: assigxxees can succtted because of £115:

sought to be made cut. by them in View cf

t§:r:y %;sé:i13 g5 fiovésession ef the watan iands or as ten whether

[their .V is ilfldfil" the rcliaquishment d,{i':(i:C1S dated

V' " ', a8.€*:3_.a2®a and 12.04.2006 and in that light as to whether the

— a’5g:?:é»$ii§3nt sf gait: can or cafinet be fiI}f(}I’C€d by the buiidsrs is

” é. iss:.t1c: to be éccrided by the Arbitrater in the pending

: arbinafiafi and judicial review {hereafter in a(:<:-zrrrdailce with

J

31

the provisions of the Act. That apart, the buflderffs have

producteci prima. facie documents to izzciieate that _.t1*~:e:§=..’Thave

parted with huge amounts which is no doubt

but at this stage, it is being dispyzteé ably”

xepresenfatives and not the executz§nts;”et1£e1;’1$(%ives. :H.efi{:e,

during the pendency of the $5-‘I:’bZ3._f.I’:’;i1’i{3;i{‘i,. if :he’v:”a$$igH3:;eeS

permitted to efiect the change of efxtfit:$_ifi I-§;111’ve”y’ and
Municipai Records or if aft: to subdivide and
transfer the properties :IL:)y “‘t1’71e’:..mfiilders, it would

ciefiniteljé”eeLise:{}i;ref%:§i’a§1e:injuzffifWiizasmuch as it is likely to
create ~».’s$:i1efi at present itself there is

cenfixsiegn gai1’c_r*e”1xIitIrf1 to the different nature of rights

being ¥a3?”Vt}1e”*pa:”ties to the property which is the

V’~.3i1E?je<;€._ "mé1tt<'*:r_V of the agreement, Hence, balance 0f

coxiveiiience' is in favour of the builders. Further, the

'~m.aIIlfl(i1'~. which the refinquishment deeds have come into

as recent as in the year 2006 would indicate that the

"'«"ap§rehen3i0:u is net Wifileut any hasis. '£'11e:'efore, in such a

"*.VVevie::11msta11ce§ 3}} that the trial Cami has directed the yazfies is

1:0 maintain st;at,21s–qu0 in xelatien to ownerehjp and possession

L

*4':

32
0f the fisuit $c:hcdu1e property till the conciusion of the

arbitration pmccédings anti as such, the ordar ziees not suffer
from any crmr cf Zaw, since the pafiies Wouid be able 1:9 enjoy

the pmpcrtics in the same maxmar as they were cioiIj7g. 1:3i.1;’1:~.*:rt:)

and if they c0–opt:rat,r:t and have the -E§i1’bitI’at;i0I}

the further judicial review procee€iVi;;;Vgs at €§ie’~ b

earliest, the position wouid be ciear. Irz§3@f;;i9r as t}y1’Cv”0;”?’3;IEIS”3«5;f1:3

concerned, in any event, tlxrsy’-.__have Agither with ¥:i1r:_ ‘ L.

property either under the refinqfiislfimcfit To} event

the assigiiéés also the uitimate orcler
granted {<3 .."?:'-..1;_:éiiE.1iS—qlli) in View of the imgending

dangesrpf ti1é" ~a$sig;1¢eS–._ch2ii1gi11g the revenue records to their

was ..po§z1iéci"——3–ut. As such, the same is also an

V":€§§~i1fi{§:b}.€'~.{§f(3§f5TA%:il.€113 fact$ of tbs: present case, which does not

cal': fcir inierfzétrfitixct.

V4 jmégnsszé Hi cap 1\ia.494l2007:

‘A13. insofar as the revision pefition, the same arises

frém the suit which has bean filed by 911:5: of the kegs}

1%

an

reprttsentafivas via, Sri Yallappagouda, who is the son of
Basanagoucla Patil. The said Basanaguuda Patjl was a
signatory to the aiiegcxi agraement of sale. As noiiceci tfég:*»jsaic1

suit is filed fiecking for declaration that the sairi

sale dated 23.03.2001 is null and void. No dozilw__lfi, as..:fi¢£:c§a

above, in View of the: principles 1ai{imVdc::m_:1″..i11.;

COMPANY’s case , it would {ye o§:aé;1__ l thcll’

consiéer with regard the existencfif the

itself befere referring the “-to afbiirafibxl While

considzzajiiésgllv appiication filed under
Section thé manner as permissible in the

case efa petifiazvfi i313.§3–.:21; }’ 1(6) of the Act. Similar View is

LU’)5H’:;:-Essa IMPRQVEMENT ‘I’RUS’I”s case in a

.V’–V;$it1;éa{tin;1″‘:’§Li”e;IT’€:1ce under Section 1 1(6) of the Act by naticing

SB?’ ENS case. But such gxzswsr available is in

_ ladditifiu. tlgtlie power available under Section 16 of the Act and

V’ «be: észercised in apympriate cases. Though that is the

‘~«l«.–po’::;£ticn of law, the qtzestic-:1 is as to whether tbs instant case

” {pf Similar facts and wheiiher the trial Ceurt, Was. justifirsxl

in rejecting the apylicaticzn. The trial C0113′: has noticed the

l

f’:

3%

earlier proceedings zelaiing to the litigatioe betu?eei:é”fiie_’ _

which have been indicated abeve, therefore, I_€3<:;;» p":~'<:::»;:.s:*;se;i0' V. b

refer to the details xegazdiag the saigfize. 'v2feéceoi;

which has prompted the triaigfi'-.{}111"i Vtiirsv reject

under Section 8 of the Act as }i}mvisi011s
contained in Section 8' is to be
accompanied by the or a duly
cexfified c:0§y = has noticed that
I.A.N(:as. 6 Vdefendants to produce
the 1ette*:9'eVf letter of acceptance by
defenéazfi. .to the said applications, the

trial Court has mereiy Sfateéi that there is 120 reasozz put fszrth

A35 penéeney of the earlier suits in

and 365/ 20945 the said agreement has not

Been A reference is also made to the suit in

whieb was ftieci by the present plaintiff and

A ..iS2as'Twi£hdzaw*n. The mere reference to the said matters and

uiiimate decision indicates that the trial C0311"? has

" "VVV}§feCeec1e<:i at a tangent: '1' he sajfi suits were irxstituteci in me

name of the owners and as such the :10n~me:1f3loz1ing of the

i

35

agreemeni a§one cannet lead to adverse i:1f’erence.’…VVT»-Ijf1..Vthe

instant case, the fact that a copy of the _

which was ebtained as a cextifieé copy ..

proceedings between the parties tlrm

cannot be in dispute inasmuch’ 3,3 t]:1eV”l¢_3a111ed Tfiiixmsei fiiyr ti11t_t L.

glaintifl” himself has attenaptctéf’ attébk– aéignduci of
producing a certified “‘0bta§i1g(§ Iifoceedings.
That apart, the conVtentic>nH_Q;vtT” not about file

I1on~cxi$£;encc: (sf {}’I’_f?,:.23gI’€3€1]1{‘§11’1E a’t’£l.1l~.ii£OI7.J:$ it their contention

that it iségiiéfii ‘tizéfir aiiegation is 01″ concoctirzg
tint .. t31eir signatures ané as such

considerixig Ltiaat several litigatizms batween the

” 371:: agréémeixi proétficsd before the Court was

in the facts and circumstance of

thfa giiiéscxit’ where repeated suits on tbs: same subject

‘vgnaticf f¢c;1’«:_aV simiiagr Tfilifif is filed by difiemnt pemo11$. The

“..gf;}¢§i}sian in the case: of ATUL sxmn AND OTHERS -vs~ surm

-?’–‘KL;;;~v:AR swan ANS OTHERS (20939) See 502) wm1§d not be

“”V V{dVf”assistance to the msgyndents herein on both the aspects

dmidfid mcmm since: the same is Ieirzéered in a circumstance

J

.1:

Whfiffi the partner to the earlisr parmexship was sxciudéerj’

the sub$t:que;1t parinexshiga deed and in tilatfiituaficri’, _« V’

gnamproduction. of dead ccntainmg a§%;’1:3itI*.’faf£i;}V3i”«;:}z3j11$§§,

relying on the same, when he was ::;.<::t a Wa'.;3 }:1e1d ix3{11is'«..

favour. In the instant C§:.-‘LS6, the V’

sigxmtoxy is the: dispétcrl «afld /Vfflfi’ glisgmted
agreement which contains is aiready 3.

gaart: of the judiciai’::)§%x:eé{1iI1§gi§…’bet§éé?é::ut}:u§j’s’é1me yarties. “¥’hc:

decisien in %1§e::.k:;;§§é:’*–%«;f 4Sft}KANiTA”v–:»HQ’LDiNGS (P) mm «vs-
JAYESH”‘H%”¥>AT:si’;>YA:’;%js.m”}’-zgrx:’rt§’F;*R”(2003(5} sec: 53 3) is 3180

not of asééstancfie .fc)x~. §a« .si1n_i1’2::;j “mason.

‘i:i;4;’.’ The AAiiec.£….t%i9n relied on in tin: case: of INDIA

“».H@VQ:%;E,r:§m:<V%.s§:e–.§ HEALTHCEARE LTD wvs-fl LG. HOESEHOLD

Ai§D"E{EAL'§'3ii_ffi?sVi2E (20076) soc :'51G)by the lztarned Qounsez

'for Jéegshigness to <:§ositi::>n sf iaw enunciatafi

u Hiiierein, but. in the .i1;:st*ani case, as alrsaiiy noticed, the persons

whose srignatums €:II”€ contaizled in the agrtzcment have net

i

‘5

38
the present suit was sought in the said suit as well. Per that

matter, even the plaintifi” in the instant case is not a sigxftatoxy

to the agreement, but is one of the legal represent§§¥i{feS:4§>f.Vt}1e

signatory to the agreement. The sigatories haveA.’:tio§.’eei1f:e

in the’ open to disgzute the same but-the1″eAapj;)ea.v1″et etc: V ‘

War. By the relinquishmeni: deed’bA:’exe-eéited the.’

wherein the rights have been CQf1″eJ_¢’E2y€d” tag the ‘-aesivgheee, the”

present plaintifi” cannot be fiéfiemtxt *3n”..ght’§than that

of the assigees and each other is

complenientarytv ‘A ‘ wtfz} eziuther, View taken 13 the earlier
petition felaiing ‘tot’ t:11e”‘aeSig1’1ee would be relevant for the

present. _proee’e:i§i1gs”.asA”~§veI1.; It is true that as contended; by

‘ V’ ‘the iefmfled €L1{)21:z1Se1″f£§r’ the assigaee, a judgment of a learned

court need not bind another Singie Judge

of any View taken therein is eentmxy to the

‘decision the Hafibie Supreme Court. Such contention was

._ ‘~:§.i_ya:ieed since according to the learned Counsel, the decision

.___””.”0fV’ihe iearned Single Judge is not as per the gsrineipie laid

“*.a;:>wn in 88? AND Cf3MPANY’s case. On that aspect of the

matter, I have already Concluded that even after

J;

‘I

39

understanding the principle as enunciated by the ‘ti-.i'[‘t’21§1’¥a}e

Supreme Court in the said ease, the same Wouid to

the aid of the plaintifi’. Therefore, the 0It1e:_t’)f.:

Single Judge being no difierent to ‘be”‘no’fiCe_eji.–

aspect wlnjch aiso need. ta be noticed the

17′ of the plaint has also taken”a:1§’ “a1te1’t1a?ti§fe’VAe(;z1tet1MQ;en that

he is net the owner of -.¥f1’as ‘1f1e”se§blance of
right. If that be the to be taut forth
before the ATbi$’Eaf;£téT:- tteeisien, whereas in
the earlier __ claimed right over the
tttt of a sitailar relief sought
relating by a person putting ferth 2:

better _r2.g::1t, ttiis_:V(J03;Li”tAhae.’t1;3}1e1d the order dated 22.12.2006

ifiasseécta in. G,.S.Nt:’>tV”‘3’S}C}/ 2006 whexeia the applicatien in

Section 8 of the Act was allowed and the

matteufwas. tethered to arbitration which was already gaending,

‘$3.16 flffifiiefit order dismissing a sitniiar applicatirzm cannot be

ééustatinied and the same calls for interference.

I

1;3¢ {Ens ether contcmtien urged by the 1e.%s§;:91..1Lt=i¢:f»;VV.i;T’;–0i:i3:;~'{i2§3A_V

for the owners as well as the assignees is f.’f1E?ii;”‘§.;’;’?_¢?;::;’$1″§fi’}:1:Z;f;’§I,§1<;33_f is ,

11021:: other 11131: the bmflzer of 5:36 of the'.»p9:*tr1ei*:§"wQf'1eV§:ve11§ at31_1 L.

earlier paint of iiflifi and ‘V’:ap’1:i;roved the
a:.’bii:ratic.:n grocecdings “p6;{iti<;v#. V;I"hat apart,
if is alga to be noticed th;;:_ :::§_¢ is an Arbiuatar
agrrsed to betw§;ci.( agreement of sale
is bemg of tha ownera and
tbs as:«jiVg$1:i'écé:3.,.::;'fVf.§'ufii:£sé11g who are the alleged
signatozfii-:3 31% not qumtioned that same in

any inéepenéirznt §fimée_di$;"gs that Woulci have bean. open to

I§$;§av,,VA_nor §)m<:::edi.11gss under $en 11(6) of the

“§~I(f:I;:,¢;fé; at fifxis stage, a1} that ceuld be obscrveci is that the

said’. C{§n£é:QV£i@1§’T1={$zouId be open to be urged if the u££in1ate

jawaré; goéis; against the awncrs and assigness, Tfiis epimbzx is

‘A the decisign (pf ‘(ha Hawbie Suprema Court in tbs

&mm%0; A63 Pzpizmsa CONTRACFS (P) um. ~vs« BHARATH

-«’.. 1T*’£::’§”RGLEUM {3ORP€)RA’I’IQ§\}’ LTD. (200? (5) 803 394; mum

V upon by the isarned Caunsei for {ha bujléers’

1

*9-

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information