JEWELTOUCH INDIA PVT LTD Vs. NAHEED HAFEEZ QURAISHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, two reliefs have been sought pending the commencement and conclusion of arbitral proceedings: (i) The appointment of a Receiver in respect of a plot of land which forms the subject matter of the dispute, with a direction to the Receiver to take possession and hand over possession to the Petitioner; (ii) An order of injunction restraining the Respondents from alienating or creating third party rights in respect of the plot.

(2.) Respondent Nos.1 to 7 are the legal heirs of Abdul Hafeez Khairulla Quraishi (Patrawala) who died on 31st July 2005. During his lifetime, the deceased entered into a Memorandum of Understanding of 9th June 2005 under which he is alleged to have agreed to transfer and assign his right title and interest in a plot of land at the Bandra Kurla Complex, bearing CTS No.4207, admeasuring 819.3 sq.mtrs. to the Petitioner. The deceased, the Petitioner and the Eighth Respondent as developer, were parties to the agreement. The MOU contemplates that the Eighth Respondent would construct on the land a building of the required specifications, for consideration. The Petitioner claims to have paid an amount of Rs. 1.15 crores to the deceased and an amount of Rs. 2.16 crores to the Eighth Respondent. Prior to the execution of the MOU, the deceased had entered into a Development Agreement dated 27th July 2004 with the Eighth Respondent. In the circumstances, the Eighth Respondent was a party to the subsequent MOU executed in June 2005 in favour of the Petitioner.

(3.) The case of the Petitioner is that a joint meeting was held at the office of its Advocate. Parties agreed that three originals of the MOU, all duly executed, would be kept in escrow with the Advocates for the three parties until such time as the formalities contemplated in accordance with the schedule set out in clause 9 of the MOU were completed. According to the Petitioner, until such time, the original title deeds were to be kept in escrow with Mr.Anil Harish, a partner of D.M. Harish & Co., a firm of Advocates representing the Petitioner. None of the parties retained a copy of the MOU which at that stage was not stamped or registered, it being in the contemplation of the parties that the MOU may have to be redrafted in the form of several documents while keeping the basic terms intact and binding.