RITIKA JHANJI Vs. RAGHBIR SINGH SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise from two impugned orders of the same date viz. 12. 5. 2009 passed in petitions being OMP Nos. 530 and 657 of 2008. Petitions were filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the appellant, seeking reliefs against the respondents 1 and 2 herein and who were also respondents 1 and 2 in the original petitions. The learned Single Judge by the impugned orders has dismissed the petitions on two counts. Firstly, it has been held by the learned Single Judge that there is no arbitration agreement between the parties. Secondly, the learned Single Judge has further held that even assuming there is an arbitration agreement, ye, the nature of the disputes raised in the Section 9 petitions do not fall within the scope of the arbitration clause.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that respondents 1 and 3 were the original owners of the property B-474, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. These respondents entered into a collaboration agreement dated 14. 3. 2002 with one Sh. Dinesh gupta. As per the collaboration agreement, in lieu of Sh. Dinesh Gupta reconstructing, at his own cost, the entire property which was to comprise of the basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor with terrace rights, Sh. Dinesh Gupta, was to get the rights in the basement and second floor with terrace rights of the property. The ground floor was to be owned by the respondent No. 1 Sh. Raghbir Singh Sehgal and the first floor was to be owned by his brother Sh. Narinder Singh Sehgal. The appellant Ms Ritika Jhanjhi w/o vineet Jhanji purchased the second floor vide the sale deed dated 11. 2. 2005. The sale deed was preceded by an agreement to sell dated 7. 10. 2002. The first floor which was originally owned by the respondent No. 3, was thereafter, purchased by the respondent No. 2 under a sale deed dated 7. 12. 2007. The respondent No. 2 is a widow and has two children. That disputes and differences arose between the appellant and the respondent No. 1 (owner of the ground floor) and the respondent No. 2 (owner of the first floor ). These disputes pertained to water supply related issues of underground water tank and fixing of booster pumps by the respondents on their municipal line and also with respect to parking of the cars. These disputes resulted in the appellant's filing the two petitions in which the impugned orders have been passed.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellant has urged the same points as pressed before the learned Single Judge that there was an Arbitration Clause which was binding between the appellant and the respondents 1 and 2 and also that the scope of the Arbitration Clause covered the disputes which were the subject matter of the OMPs.