URMIL KUMARI Vs. BHARAT MEHTA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA No. 16200/2012.

(2.) THIS is an application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by defendants No. 1 to 3. This is a small application of three paragraphs claiming that the entire dispute raised in the present suit arises out of a collaboration agreement and that the agreement contains an arbitration clause being clause 13. Hence, it is averred that the suit be rejected under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

(3.) ON the request of defendant No. 1 the first floor, which was at that stage not even ready, was transferred to defendant No. 2 the mother of defendant No. 1 vide Sale Deed dated 9.6.2010 in good faith and trust. As there was delay in completion of the building, the defendant No. 1 is stated to have proposed to give her one flat on first floor built in half portion of rear side of A -12, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi as a guarantee till he completes the construction of the said house. It is further said that on 28.7.2010 defendant No. 1 brought two cheques of Rs. 20 lacs each in the name of plaintiff to make payment of the flat i.e. property No. A -12, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. Thereafter on 30.7.2010 plaintiff was surreptitiously said to have been taken to the office of Sub Registrar where various documentation was executed under the guise of having executed the sale deed for A -12, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi. A sum of Rs. 9 lac and another sum of Rs. 3,35,575/ - was also taken back from the plaintiff. Later on the plaintiff came to know that the property A -12, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi was actually a disputed property in a dispute pending between son of defendant No. 1 and his brother. It is stated that under the garb of getting the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the said A -12, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi defendants have in connivance with each other manoeuvred, cheated and defrauded the plaintiff in respect of second floor, third floor and terrace of the suit property. Hence, the suit has been filed. In the course of submissions it has been admitted that the first floor of the property which was transferred in favour of defendant No. 2, the said defendant No. 2 sold the said first floor flat to defendants No. 4 and 5. They further sold the flat to defendants No. 6 & 7. Similarly, as far as the second floor is concerned, the same was transferred in favour of defendants No. 2 and 3 who have further sold it to defendants No. 7 and 8. As far as third floor is concerned the same was sold to defendant No. 3 who has thereafter sold it to defendants No. 4 and 5. Defendants No. 4 and 5 have thereafter sold it to defendant No. 9.