NEERAJ CHOPRA Vs. BEENA S. AGGARWAL & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Caveats No. 656/2013 & 657/2013.

(2.) THE petitioner Neeraj Chopra has filed the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 20th July, 2013 by the Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Suit No. 172/2013 whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that on 29th March, 2011 a lease deed was registered between the parties i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit property. The rate of rent was fixed at Rs. 50,000/ - per month. Upon service, the petitioner on 5th June, 2013 filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 along with Memorandum of Understanding dated 10th March, 2011 alleging that there is an arbitration clause in the said MOU and thus, the suit was liable to be stayed. By the impugned order the said application of the petitioner was dismissed as the respondents denied the execution any memorandum of understanding as well as containing any arbitration clause.

(3.) COUNSEL argued that no averment was made by the petitioner in his application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 that the original agreement was lying with the respondents, however, after thought in a clever manner it is alleged in the subsequent proceedings that the original agreement is lying with the respondents which is specifically denied. Counsel for the respondents did not deny having received the notice under Order 12 Rule 8 from the petitioner side to file the original MOU. As the respondents denied the existence of alleged MOU, the question of discovery of the document does not arise. He further submits that even otherwise the said document i.e. MOU dated 10th March, 2011 is prior to the execution of registered lease deed which is dated 29th March, 2011. In the absence of said document, the application has been rightly rejected by the trial court.