After about 2 years, Shri Bhupinder Singh, Advocate filed IA No.
The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court passed an ex parte interim order dated 22.1.2001 and restrained respondent Nos.
Bhagwati Developers challenged that order in FAO OS No.90/2001, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 2.3.2001 with liberty to approach the learned Single Judge for appropriate order.
The Calcutta High Court passed an order apparently directing the Receiver to take possession of the suit property.
Another front of litigation was opened by Bhagwati Developers with the allegation that the appellants have failed to execute the sale deed in terms of agreement dated 18.3.1997.
Simultaneously, the parties cancelled the companylaboration agreement.
On appeal, the same was remanded for fresh adjudication of the claim of the parties.
So, Respondents No.4 to in this application were also aware of the pendency of this suit.
The relevant portions of that order are reproduced below The facts remain that these facts were neither disclosed to the decree holder number to the Arbitrator and this question was number necessary to be gone into while executing the decree and, as such, it was also number placed before this Court and this Court having number been apprised of such facts had passed an order for taking over possession of the property.
Thereafter, IA No.1537/2001 was moved by the defendant No.l stating that he had number authorized any companynsel to make an application for withdrawal of the suit and the whole proceedings were companylusive, fraudulent and that he had number entered into any companypromise with the said six transferees.
After 12 years, the Governor General in Council sanctioned the grant of perpetual lease in favour of one of them, namely, Sidh Nath Khanna.
The dispute between Bhagwati Developers and the appellants was referred to the sole arbitration of Dr. Debasis Kundu, an Advocate of the Calcutta High Court.
emphasis supplied In Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon supra , this Court examined the companyrectness of the order passed by the Calcutta High Court which had approved the dismissal of the application filed by the appellants for impleadment as parties to the suit filed by the original owner Khetra Mohan Das and the transferees, namely, Birendra Nath Dey and Smt.
The learned Single Judge passed ex parte interim order dated 8.2.2001 and restrained the appellants, Bhagwati Developers, the receiver appointed by the Calcutta High Court and Delhi Police from interfering with the possession of respondent No.4.
Soon thereafter, the advocate who had instituted the suit, filed IA No.1537/2001 for restoration of the suit by asserting that IA No.255/2001 had been filed by an advocate who was number authorised to do so.
Thereupon, the Calcutta High Court directed the police authorities at Delhi to assist the receiver for ensuring companypliance of order dated 17.8.2000.
Respondent No.4 also filed IA No.
The learned Arbitrator gave an Award dated 7th January, 1999 wherein he directed Respondents No.
However, this suit was withdrawn on 10.1.2001 vide application IA No.
There appear to have been some disputes between Respondents No.4 to 9 in this application and Respondent No.10 in the application in respect of the suit property.
During the pendency of the appeals, Birendra Nath Dey assigned leasehold interest in respect of a portion of the suit property to the appellants.
Well before all this, and apparently expecting Defendant No.1 to perform the Agreement to sell, these 6 persons who are Respondents No.4 to 9 in this application entered into an agreement to sell the suit property to Respondent No.10 in this application.
When the receiver came to Delhi for execution of the award, respondent No.4 refused to hand over possession.
The same respondent filed an application in EC No.10/2000 pending before the Calcutta High Court and brought to the numberice of that High Court, order dated 8.2.2001 passed by the Delhi High Court in Suit No.
On 13.9.1988, respondent No.2 executed an agreement for sale in favour of respondent No.1 for a companysideration of Rs.2.5 crores.
In the order dated 8.2.2001 the Delhi High Court had taken a numbere of this position.
2 and 4 entered into an agreement whereby the latter agreed to provide various services including the one that he will get the suit property vacated from the Sudan Embassy and for that he will charge Rs.4 crores.
Some of the observations made in that order, which have bearing on the disposal of these appeals, are extracted below Quite clearly Respondents No.4 to 9 in this application were aware of the fact that Defendant No.1 had filed Suit No.161/99.
118/1998 under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC with the allegation that the number applicants including the appellants herein had entered into a companyspiracy for the purpose of grabbing the property in violation of the order of injunction passed by the High Court.
In November 1987, respondent No.2 took loan from Shri Avtar Singh and created an equitable mortgage in his favour.
He further pleaded that the agreement was void and unenforceable because the requisite permission had number been obtained under Section 269 UC of the Income Tax Act.
In the meanwhile, the appellants executed agreement for sale dated 18.3.1997 in favour of Bhagwati Developers for a companysideration of Rs.4.26 crores and received Rs.3.05 crores.
Respondent No.1 also filed IA No.8146/1998 under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Order 39 Rule 7 and Section 151 CPC for appointment of Local Commissioner and IA No.8147/1998 under Order 40 Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC for appointment of a receiver.
emphasis supplied Respondent No.4 filed another application IA No.
On 19.2.1997, respondent No.2 executed 6 agreements for sale in favour of the appellants for a total companysideration of Rs.2.88 crores.
10730/1993 under Order 7 Rule 11 for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same was barred by time.
1211/2001 in the Delhi High Court for grant of injunction by alleging that an attempt is being made to dispossess him in the garb of an order passed by the Calcutta High Court.
Respondent No.2 filed application dated 16.12.1998 for vacating interim order dated 18.2.1993.
On 13th December, 2000 the Calcutta High Court directed the police authorities to render all assistance to the Receiver to take steps in accordance with the earlier order passed by the Calcutta High Court.
The learned Single Judge entertained the companytempt petition against respondent Nos.
In furtherance of those agreements, six sale deeds were executed and registered on 30.5.1997.
Kalyani Dey sold the other portion of the suit property to the appellants.
He also executed an agreement for sale in favour of respondent No.3.
The learned Single Judge directed that the application be listed only after filing of an affidavit by respondent No.2 that he had number authorised Shri Bhupinder Singh, Advocate to file I.A. No.255/2001.
425/1993.
No objections appear to have been filed to this Award with the result that Respondent No.10 in this application filed proceedings in the Calcutta High Court praying for a direction for the appointment of a Receiver to take physical possession of the suit property.
When the representative of respondent No.1 learnt about the award of the arbitrator and the order passed by the Calcutta High Court, he filed IA No.625/2001 in the Delhi High Court under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC impleading respondent Nos.
They appear to have deliberately misled the learned Arbitrator and the Calcutta High Court.
On companying to know about the proposed alienation of property by respondent No.2, respondent No.1 filed Suit No.425/1993 in the Delhi High Court for specific performance of agreement for sale dated 13.9.1988, award of damages and injunction.
He even filed suit No.
In October 1977, the name of respondent No.2 Pradeep Kumar Khanna son of Devi Prasad Khanna , who died during the pendency of the litigation before the High Court and is represented by his legal representatives, was entered in the records of the Ministry of Works and Housing, Land and Development Office and the lease was transferred in his name.
161/1999 for declaration to this effect.
It also filed IA No.1947/1993 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.
As the appellants failed to act in companysonance with the arbitral award, Bhagwati Developers filed an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the Calcutta High Court, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge of that High Court vide order dated 17.8.2000 and a direction was issued to the appellants to companyply with the arbitral award.
Thereupon, respondent No.1 filed CCP No.
The suit was decreed by the trial Court.
On companying to know of the aforesaid sale transactions, the plaintiff filed application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 2 CPC for restraining the defendant Nos.1 2 from transferring possession of the suit property to the said six transferees under the alleged six sale deeds.
2 and 4 were in possession of the suit property, submitted report dated 10.2.2000 with the finding that respondent No.4 was in actual possession.
The learned Single Judge passed order dated 18.2.1993 and directed that defendant Nos.
2 and 4 but declined to do so qua the appellants by observing that numberprima facie case had been made out against those who were number parties to the suit.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the application vide order dated 5.4.1994 and directed that interim order dated 18.2.1993 shall companytinue.
After taking companynizance of the rival submissions, the learned Judge of the Calcutta High Court passed order dated 15.2.2001 and made it clear that the order passed by that Court will be subject to the order which may be passed by the Delhi High Court.
Defendant No.l in his reply took the stand that impugned sale deeds were forged and fabricated and were number executed by him.
9576/2001 for restraining the appellants from executing the sale deed in favour of Bhagwati Developers.
Respondent No.2 companytested the application by asserting that he had number executed any sale deed in favour of the appellants and that possession of the suit property had already been handed over to respondent No.4.
8145/1998 for restraining respondent Nos.2 and 4 from handing over possession of the suit property to any other person.
2 and 4, the appellants and Bhagwati Developers as parties and prayed that respondent Nos.
Fakir Mohammad challenged the order of remand by filing two second appeals.
The Sudan Embassy vacated the suit property on 12.5.1992 and handed over possession to respondent No.2, who is said to have handed over the same to respondent No.4.
255/2001 for withdrawal of the suit on the ground that the parties have amicably settled their dispute.
The suit property was leased by the Secretary of State for India to Sidh Nath Khanna and Sukh Nath Khanna sometime in 1930.
1 and 3 respondent Nos.
Since there was an arbitration clause in the agreement between them, they referred the matter to arbitration.
Respondent No.2 also filed Suit No.
At that stage, respondent No.1 filed IA No.
The Arbitrator passed award dated 7.1.1999 and directed the appellants to hand over vacant possession of the suit property along with the building to Bhagwati Developers on or before 31.1.1999 and also execute the sale deed after securing requisite permission and numberobjection certificate from the companypetent authorities.
4 to 9 in this application to hand over peaceful vacant possession of the suit property to Respondent No.10 in this application.
The learned Single Judge entertained the application and passed interim order in terms of the prayer made.
161/1999 for grant of a declaration that sale deeds executed in favour of the appellants were fictitious and were number binding on him.
Further orders were passed restraining these six transferees defendant No.s 4 to 9 from acting upon the impugned sale deeds.
Simultaneously, Bhagwati Developers was directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.1,20,90,000/ .
2 and 4 herein shall number transfer, alienate or part with possession in any manner or create third party rights in respect of the suit property.
The Court Commissioner appointed by the High Court to ascertain whether respondent Nos.
When the appellants applied for recording their names in the municipal records, they came to know about the pendency of the appeals.
After 3 months, respondent No.2 mortgaged the suit property in favour of respondent No.4.
2 and 4 from delivering possession of the suit property to the appellants and also restrained the latter from taking possession.
He pleaded that the agreement for sale executed in favour of respondent No.1 was, in fact, a loan agreement and the same was violative of Section 24 read with Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
After some time, respondent No.3 executed assignment deed dated 13.12.1988 in favour of respondent No.2.
It appears that Respondents No.4 to 9 in this application did number bother to find out the companyrect factual position with regard to the possession of the suit property or with regard to the interim orders passed by this Court.
When the Receiver and the police authorities came to take possession of the suit property, L.K. Kaul became aware of the proceedings in the Calcutta High Court.
Ltd. for short, Bhagwati Developers .
After receiving summons, respondent Nos.2 and 4 filed IA No.
2 and 4 be restrained from handing over possession of the suit property and that the appellants be restrained from taking forcible possession in the garb of some order passed by the Calcutta High Court.
255/2001 purported to have been moved by him through Shri Bhupinder Singh, Advocate, on the statement of Advocate without the presence of the defendant No.l or his statement.
Restraint order to this effect was passed by the learned Single Judge.
Immediately thereafter, they filed an application for impleadment which was rejected by the High Court.
The learned Single Judge also appointed Shri Nar Narayan Ganguli, Advocate as receiver and directed him to take possession of the suit property.
S. Singhvi, J. Leave granted.
Whether M s. Vidur Impex and Traders Pvt.
In 1992, respondent Nos.
Ltd., and five other companypanies hereinafter described as the appellants , who are said to have purchased the suit property, i.e. 21, Aurangzeb Road, New Delhi in violation of the order of injunction passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court are entitled to be impleaded as parties to Suit No.425/1993 filed by respondent No.1 M s. Tosh Apartments Pvt.
Ltd. is one of the two questions which arises for companysideration in these appeals filed against judgment dated 20.2.2009 of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.
After 5 years, he entered into a companylaboration agreement with Shri Arun Kumar Bhatia respondent No.3 for companystruction of a multi storied building.
In March 1980, respondent No.2 mortgaged the suit property to Shri S.N. Tondon.
Armed with that direction, the receiver visited Delhi on 19.1.2001 and 5.2.2001 and took symbolic possession of the suit property by putting locks and seals on all the inner and outer gates.
He rented out the same to the Sudan Embassy on 12.9.1962.
In the family partition which took place in December 1955, the suit property fell to the share of Shri Devi Prasad Khanna, who was one of the heirs of Sidh Nath Khanna.
