VEENA MANGHANI Vs. SUBHASH ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE this petition, the petitioners have challenged the award dated 13th May, 2014, whereby the claim of the respondent was decreed under Order 12 Rule 6 of CPC, on several grounds.

(2.) THE facts show that the respondent was the claimant before the Arbitrator and the case of the respondent before the Arbitrator was that the petitioners were the owners of property No.W -54, Greater Kailash -I, New Delhi, measuring 500 square yards and vide agreement to sell dated 07.02.2012 (due to inadvertent typographical error has been wrongly mentioned as 07.01.2012) had purchased the said property for a total consideration of Rs. 25 crore. The respondent/claimant had paid a sum of Rs. 7.25 crores and was ready to pay the balance sum of Rs. 17.75. The manner of payment was also shown by the respondent -claimant which has been re -produced by the learned Arbitrator in his award as under: -

(3.) THE petitioner, who was the respondent before the learned Arbitrator had also filed its reply. The case of the petitioner/respondent before the Arbitrator was that the alleged agreement to sell was a fraudulent document. It was alleged that the stamp paper of the said agreement to sell was of the year 2010 while the date of agreement was 07.01.2012, the demand drafts mentioned therein were bearing the date as 07.02.2012. It was also contended before the learned Arbitrator that the Arbitral Tribunal had no power to grant prayer of specific performance. It was also contended that agreement to sell was to be honoured within 120 days subject to full payment which period had expired on 07.05.2012. It was further contended that the claimant had not produced any documentary evidence to show that there was a continuous willingness to pay the balance amount by him. It is further alleged that the claimant, even before making the part payment, had the full knowledge that the property was under mortgage and this is clear from the fact that the claimant had made part of the payments in the account of M/s. Alcome Perfumes and Cosmetics Private Limited from whose account the money was used to repay the bank liability. The respondent petitioner had also taken the plea before the learned Arbitrator that there was some oral collaboration agreement between the parties, but their signatures were obtained by the claimant -respondent on certain blank papers. On these contentions, the respondent -petitioner had sought the dismissal of the claim statement.