Ajay JaIn Vs. Atul Gupta

Ajay Jain vs Atul Gupta

Disposition Petition allowed Court Delhi Decided Jul 14, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/698510

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/698510
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mukul Mudgal, J.
Decided On: Jul 14, 2004
Case Number: Arb. P. No. 63/2004
Subject: Arbitration
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Arbitration
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ajay Jain

Advocate Uday Gupta, Adv

Respondent

Atul Gupta

Advocate Nemo

Legal References

Acts: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11
Reported In: 2004(3)ARBLR285(Delhi); 2004(76)DRJ534

Excerpt

- mukul mudgal, j.1. this is an application under section 11 of the arbitration and conciliation act, 1996. even after service of notice none appeared on behalf of the respondent. accordingly the matter is taken up for hearing. a collaboration agreement for reconstruction and redevelopment of the property measuring 200 sq. yds. bearing plot no. 17 in block no. 3, east patel nagar, new delhi was undertaken by the petitioner, the respondent being the owner thereof. the relevant clause 2 of the collaboration agreement provided as follows:-'....... it is also agreed between the parties that the upper ground floor and the second floor together with the terrace/roof rights over and above the second floor up the limit of the sky and the entire entrance and stair hall area from ground level to roof shall be owned and retained by the first party; and lower ground floor and first floor shall be owned and retained by second party after completion of construction and all other works in the entire building....'2. the petitioner avers that he has fulfilled its obligation under the agreement. the respondent has refused to do so and has not yet given him the possession of the lower ground floor and has only given the possession of first floor which has been sold off by the petitioner. accordingly the applicant had proposed the name of shri uday umesh lalit, advocate as arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement which was not responded to by the respondent. clause 37 of the agreement provides for arbitration and reads as follows:-'that in the event of any dispute arising in connection with or incidental to or in respect of scope of this agreement or any part thereof, the same shall be referred to the arbitration subject to the indian arbitration and conciliation act and the decision of the mutually appointed arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties. the venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be at new delhi.'3. accordingly the petition is allowed. with the.....

Full Judgment

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. This is an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Even after service of notice none appeared on behalf of the respondent. Accordingly the matter is taken up for hearing. A collaboration agreement for reconstruction and redevelopment of the property measuring 200 sq. yds. bearing plot No. 17 in Block No. 3, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi was undertaken by the petitioner, the respondent being the owner thereof. The relevant clause 2 of the Collaboration Agreement provided as follows:-

'....... It is also agreed between the parties that the Upper Ground Floor and the Second Floor together with the terrace/roof rights over and above the Second Floor up the limit of the sky and the entire entrance and stair hall area from ground level to roof shall be owned and retained by the First Party; and Lower Ground Floor and First Floor shall be owned and retained by Second Party after completion of construction and all other works in the entire building....'

2. The petitioner avers that he has fulfilled its obligation under the agreement. The respondent has refused to do so and has not yet given him the possession of the lower ground floor and has only given the possession of first floor which has been sold off by the petitioner. Accordingly the applicant had proposed the name of Shri Uday Umesh Lalit, Advocate as Arbitrator as per the arbitration agreement which was not responded to by the respondent. Clause 37 of the agreement provides for arbitration and reads as follows:-

'That in the event of any dispute arising in connection with or incidental to or in respect of scope of this agreement or any part thereof, the same shall be referred to the arbitration subject to the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act and the decision of the mutually appointed arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties. The venue of the arbitration proceedings shall be at New Delhi.'

3. Accordingly the petition is allowed. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Prabhakar Singh, Supdt. Engineer, Circle -I, CPWD, I.P. Bhawan, New Delhi (Mob. 9818772910 9818772910 ) is appointed as Arbitrator who is directed to pronounce his award within four months from today. He will be paid Rs.30,000/- towards his fee. He will also be entitled to reimbursement of expenses. The parties to approach the Arbitrator expeditiously and not later than four weeks from today.

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 2004 Same Parties Ajay Jain vs Atul Gupta Same Subject Arbitration Same Judge Mukul Mudgal, J. Acts & Sections Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 11

Arbitration