LAWS(P&H)-2013-2-484

USHA GUPTA Vs. AERENS GOLDSOUK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

Decided On February 11, 2013
USHA GUPTA Appellant
V/S
AERENS GOLDSOUK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these five petitions filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), not only the parties are common, but even the subject matter is common. The reason for filing five cases is that there were five agreements to sell between the same parties, all dated 06.11.2009. By these agreements, the petitioner had agreed to purchase different areas of the commercial complex known as 'Gold Souk' situated at C-Block, Sushant Lok, Phase-I, Gurgaon, Haryana. According to the petitioner, entire sale consideration payable under these agreements was duly paid on the execution of the agreement deeds and symbolic possession of the premises was handed over by the respondents to the petitioner. The petitioner contends that inspite of receiving the entire consideration, the respondent has failed to execute the sale deed of the areas covered by these sale agreements. As these agreements provide arbitration clause, which is identically worded, that is the reason for filing the present petitions seeking constitution of Arbitral Tribunal.

(2.) For the purpose of clarity, it would be necessary to take note of some more facts having regard to the position that in all these cases identical developments have taken place after entering into the agreements dated 06.11.2009. These facts are recorded from Arbitration Case No. 63 of 2012.

(3.) In this case, vide agreement to sell dated 06.11.2009, the respondent had agreed to sell property being GF 2, on the ground floor, having super area of 942 sq. ft. in the aforesaid 'Gold Souk' building. Total consideration agreed to was Rs. 1,31,88,000/-, which was paid simultaneously with the entering into the agreement. The respondent also gave symbolic possession, inasmuch as the premises were in the possession of M/s AGS Retail Private Limited as tenant, which is stated to be the sister concern of the respondent herein.