Case No.
OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 159/2019, EX.APPL.(OS) 940/2023, EX.APPL.(OS) 941/2023, EX.APPL.(OS) 942/2023
Bench
Dinesh Kumar Sharma J.
Acts & Sections
CPC §47
CPC §151
CPC §Order XXI Rule 2(2)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 §34
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 §36
Limitation Act, 1963 §5
Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The Decree Holders, Landmark Property Development And Company Ltd. & Ors., obtained an arbitral award dated 07.09.2018 (as corrected on 17.09.2018 and 13.11.2018) passed by a sole arbitrator, the late Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ramesh Chandra Lahoti (Retd.), Former Chief Justice of India, against the Judgment Debtors, Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors., arising out of disputes under a Business Transfer Agreement dated 02.04.2012 pertaining to a joint venture real estate project. The Decree Holders filed enforcement proceedings under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, while the Judgment Debtors challenged the award under Section 34 of the said Act.
The Judgment Debtor No.1 filed three applications: EX.APPL.(OS) 940/2023 under Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 2(2) read with Section 151 CPC seeking certification of adjustment, discharge and satisfaction of the award; EX.APPL.(OS) 941/2023 under Section 47 read with Section 151 CPC seeking consequential directions; and EX.APPL.(OS) 942/2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 151 CPC for condonation of delay. The Judgment Debtors contended that a comprehensive settlement had been reached between the parties on 21.03.2023, that the executed settlement documents were placed in escrow with a mutually trusted third party, and that the Decree Holders had unconditionally waived and abandoned the award by an Undertaking Letter dated 21.03.2023.
The Court examined the submissions of both sides relating to the alleged settlement, the nature and enforceability of the documents executed on 21.03.2023, and whether the award could be treated as adjusted, discharged or satisfied within the meaning of Section 47 and Order XXI Rule 2 of the CPC, and proceeded to record its findings and analysis on these issues.
Catchwords:
arbitration enforcement · satisfaction of award · adjustment of decree · Section 47 CPC · Order XXI Rule 2 CPC · settlement agreement · escrow arrangement · waiver of award · condonation of delay · Limitation Act Section 5 · joint venture agreement · Business Transfer Agreement · real estate dispute · Arbitration and Conciliation Act Section 34 · Section 36
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 43, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Landmark Property Development And ... vs Ansal Properties & Infrastructure Ltd. ... on 3 October, 2024
Author: Dinesh Kumar Sharma
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Sharma
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RESERVED ON - 10.09.2024.
% PRONOUNCED ON - 03.10.2024.
+ OMP (ENF.) (COMM.) 159/2019, EX.APPL.(OS) 940/2023,
EX.APPL.(OS) 941/2023, EX.APPL.(OS) 942/2023
LANDMARK PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AND COMPANY
LTD. & ORS. .....Decree Holders
Through: Mr. Amit Sibal, Mr. Siddharth
Aggarwal, Sr. Advs. with Ms.
Manmeet Kaur, Mr. Gurtejpal Singh,
Mr
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.
