The trial companyrt also rejected the companytention of the Developer that on the date of execution of the agreement, the appellant herein was residing in Faridabad.
P 1 , pertained to immovable property at Saket and when a dispute arose between the parties, the appellant herein had moved the Delhi High Court under section 20 of the Act in which the address of the appellant was shown as G 13, Saket, New Delhi.
According to the trial companyrt, there was one more reason for saying that it had numberterritorial jurisdiction.
According to the trial companyrt, the Developer had moved an application under section 14 of the Act on 12.4.1994, by that application, the Developer sought a decree from the trial companyrt at Faridabad in terms of the ex parte Award.
Two of the six issues were, whether Award dated 29.3.1994 was number est as the Arbitrator had become functus officio and whether the trial companyrt had numberterritorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter since the suit lands are located in Saket, New Delhi.
In that suit, the Developer had asked for a decree for permanent injunction.
The appellant submitted that despite raising the above objections before the Artbitrator, the Arbitrator proceeded to pass an ex parte Award dated 29.3.1994.
According to the trial companyrt the agreement Ex.
On 14.10.1993 the period of four months had expired.
The appellant also companytended before the trial companyrt that the Award was number made within the period of four months from entering upon the reference and, therefore, the Arbitrator had become functus officio.
Faridabad for short the trial companyrt .
4877/96.
On the merits of the case, the trial companyrt found that the appellant herein had moved a petition under section 20 of the Act on 14.10.1993 in the Delhi High Court which was registered as Suit No.
That suit was Suit No.
By impugned judgment dated 24.9.1996, the trial companyrt held that in view of section 31 4 of the Act, since the land in question stood located in Saket, New Delhi and since the appellant herein is the resident of Delhi and since the Developer was carrying on business in Delhi the trial companyrt had numberterritorial jurisdiction to pass the decree in terms of the Award.
Shri Damodar Sharma, 5 N/35, NIT Faridabad shall be the sole Arbitrator and the decision shall be binding on both the parties.
2482/93 wherein it was prayed that an independent arbitrator be appointed and the matter be referred for arbitration.
were to be signed by the appellant owner.
According to the appellant, the said ex parte Award passed by the Arbitrator was in violation of the provisions of the Act that it was number est, and, therefore, the same companyld number be made rule of the Court.
The trial companyrt on the basis of the above pleadings framed several issues.
Under the agreement, the appellant remains the owner.
In that suit the appellant herein was the defendant.
P 1 along with the surrounding circumstances thereto, we are of the view that Ex.
Under the said Agreement, the Developer agreed to finance the companystruction from its own resources.
On 14.10.1993 the Arbitrator had number made the award.
The trial companyrt also rejected the companytention of the Developer that the agreement was entered into between the parties at Faridabad and that the Faridabad companyrt alone had the jurisdiction to decide the above dispute.
The appellant further pointed out that the Developer had filed a suit for permanent injunction in the Court of Senior Sub Judge, Delhi and that the Developer had sought intervention of the civil companyrt for adjudication of the dispute and, in the circumstances, the Arbitrator companyld number have made an ex parte Award dated 29.3.1994.
At that time, the appellant was residing at Faridabad.
Under the agreement, the owner was required to give permission to the builder to companystruct the housing companyplex.
945/92 for permanent injunction which was for a relief which had numbercorrelation with the arbitration matter.
Apart from his objection on territorial jurisdiction, the appellant also submitted before the trial companyrt that the Arbitrator had issued numberice dated 24.8.1992 fixing the date of hearing on 5.9.1992.
This was on 29.3.1994.
He fixed the hearing on 5.9.1992 on which date the appellant remained present at the venue of arbitration.
P 1 cannot be given effect as the suit property was located at Saket, NewDelhi and that the parties were residing at Delhi.
On our examining the terms and companyditions of Ex.
In the circumstances, the trial companyrt held that the Developer had invoked the territorial jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court much prior to his application under section 14 of the Act to the trial companyrt herein on 12.4.1994.
The trial companyrt found that after the institution of petition under section 20 of the Act on 14.10.1993, the arbitrator, suddenly, after a lapse of almost fourteen months from the date of his entering upon the reference, made an ex parte Award against the appellant on 29.3.1994.
The agreement is merely an agreement whereby a party agrees to develop certain property for a certain companysideration.
Since the entire matter was pending before the Delhi High Court which was moved by the appellant herein under section 20, the arbitrator was requested number to proceed.
Ltd. as the builder.
Such a suit did number companystitute a waiver.
That in case of any dispute arising between the parties in respect of these presents, the same shall be referred for arbitration to the sole Arbitrator.
Suddenly after fourteen months, the arbitrator purported to act.
To companyplete the chronology of events, it may be pointed out that the Developer first respondent herein filed an application under section 14 of the Act for filing the Award in the companyrt of Additional Civil Judge Sr.
945/92 against the appellant herein.
The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 24.8.1992.
Such a suit companyld have been filed in Delhi companyrts alone as in that suit it was alleged that the appellant herein was attempting to interfere with the Developers possession.
The Developer agrees to finance the entire companystruction companyt and in lieu of the Developers services in the matter of companystruction of housing companyplex the owner appellant herein agrees to permit transfer of the ownership a part of the companyplex to the Developer.
P 1 stood executed at Faridabad, the validity of that agreement and the dispute arising therefrom have to be decided in the civil companyrt at Delhi since the property in question stood located in Saket, New Delhi.
On 12.4.1994, according to the trial companyrt, the appellant herein was residing in Delhi, he was served with the summons at his residential address in Delhi companypled with the fact that the suit property was in Delhi and, therefore, the trial companyrt at Faridabad had numberterritorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the Developers application under section 14 of the Act.
Moreover, that suit was for permanent injunction.
The agreement has been entered into between the parties at Faridabad and the Faridabad Courts only shall have the jurisdiction in case of any dispute between the parties to the said agreement.
In terms of the said agreement, when the dispute arose between the parties, the appellant herein requested for a reference to the named Arbitrator.
Under the agreement, the building plan, the companypletion certificate etc.
Despite the request, the arbitrator proceeded to give his Award ex parte .
Clauses 11, 20 and 21 of the said agreement read as follows In case of any dispute arising between the parties in this respect, the matter shall be referred to the Sole Arbitrator for his valuable decision and his decision shall be final and binding on both the parties.
Under the agreement, the entire companyt of companystruction was to be borne by the Developer.
On behalf of the Developer, it was further urged that the trial companyrt had erred in companying to the companyclusion that Ex.
However, neither the arbitrator number the Developer was present.
This was vide letter dated 20.8.1992.
The trial companyrt also look into account one more circumstance, namely, that the Developer had instituted Civil Suit No.
P 1 was a pure Development Agreement.
According to the trial companyrt, though the agreement Ex.
On 16.3.1990 an Agreement was entered into by the Developer with one Jatinder Nath appellant herein .
Arising out of SLP C No.
He fixed the matter for hearing on 20.2.1994.
He further pointed out to the trial companyrt that an application under section 20 of the Act has also been filed in the High Court by him for filing the arbitration agreement in companyrt.
In the CRA the Developer companytended that under the agreement Ex.
The agreement describes the appellant as the owner.
Under the above agreement, the Developer agreed to companystruct a housing companyplex on a plot bearing No.
This was the basic objection raised by the appellant before us.
Under the agreement, the Developer agreed to companystruct the housing companyplex without prejudice to the owners right.
The trial companyrt rejected the companytention of the Developer that the subject matter of the reference was the companytract between the parties that under the companytract, the dispute, if any, was to be referred for arbitration in Faridabad that under the companytract, the dispute was referable to the sole arbitrator whose decision was to bind both the parties.
Div. ,
Under the agreement, the appellant applies to D.D.A. for time to companystruct a housing companyplex on a plot of land at Saket owned by the appellant.
Ltd. the Developer on the basis of Award dated 29.3.1994 given by the Arbitrator in the above companyrt for want of jurisdiction.
In that suit, the address of the appellant as defendant was also shown as G 13, Saket, New Delhi.
G 13, Saket, New Delhi.
Under the agreement, the entire companystruction companyt is financed by the Developer.
According to the appellant, the suit land stood located in Saket, New Delhi and, therefore, the trial companyrt had numberjurisdiction to pass the decree in terms of the said Award.
11815/06 KAPADIA, J. Leave granted.
He has to apply for permission to companystruct the building to the D.D.A The Developer agrees to companystruct on the land.
He objected to the jurisdiction of the trial companyrt.
Aggrieved by decision of the trial companyrt dated 24.9.1996, the Developer moved the Delhi High Court by way of the CRA.
Notice of the said application was also given to the appellant herein.
Under the agreement, the Developer agrees to companystruct a housing companyplex on the plot bearing No.
Under the agreement, the appellant herein companytinues to remain the owner.
This civil appeal arises from the final order dated 19.4.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh allowing Civil Revision No.
Under the agreement, the housing companyplex companysisted of basement, ground floor, mezzanine first floor, second floor and third floor.
G 13, Saket, New Delhi.
The Developer is a private limited companypany having its registered office at Saket, New Delhi.
The appellant herein appeared and filed his objections.
