Also reported in
This judgment disposed of connected matters. The same reasons were delivered in
the following 2 cases.
Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The petitioners filed petitions under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising out of a Third Collaboration Agreement dated 14.10.2010 executed between the petitioners and M/S Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Limited in respect of land situated in Sector 67, Gurgaon. Under the said agreement, the respondent-developer was to develop the land and allot residential plots to the petitioners as their share, but neither possession was delivered nor sale deeds executed. Disputes arose after respondent no.1 froze/suspended possession and subsequently sold the allotted plots to third parties without the petitioners' consent.
The petitioners invoked the arbitration clause contained in the Third Collaboration Agreement and sought to implead the subsequent purchasers (respondent nos. 3 to 5) in the arbitral proceedings on the ground that they were assignees of respondent no.1 and had acquired benefits under the Collaboration Agreement, which defined 'developer' to include assignees. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 had already consented to constitution of an arbitral tribunal. The Court examined whether non-signatories to the arbitration agreement could be bound by and made party to the arbitral proceedings.
The Court considered the settled legal principles relating to binding of non-signatories to arbitration agreements, including the doctrines of assignment, implied consent, and group of companies, and disposed of the petitions by appointing an arbitrator and making appropriate directions regarding the participation of respondent nos. 3 to 5 in the arbitral proceedings.
Catchwords:
arbitration · appointment of arbitrator · Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act · collaboration agreement · non-signatory parties · assignees · real estate · residential plots · possession · sale deed · implied consent · group of companies doctrine
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
Full Judgment Text
[Cites 37, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Badrinath Kakkar & Anr. vs M/S Ansal Properties And ... on 29 October, 2024
Author: Sachin Datta
Bench: Sachin Datta
$~J-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 29.10.2024
+ ARB.P. 721/2022
SURESH KUMAR KAKKAR & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Akanksha Kaul, Mr. Harsh Sethi
and Mr. Anant, Advocates.
versus
M/S ANSAL PROPERTIES
AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ravi Sikri, Sr. Adv. alongwith
Mr. Sachin Midha, Mr. Deepank
Yadav, Mr. Aditya Vikram Bajpai
and Ms. Kanak Grove
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools.
For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
