CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

M/S Priyashi Aashi Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs Mitrajyoti Deka And 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC · Decided on 31 March 2022 · Citation: (2022) 03 GAU CK 0062

HON’BLE JUDGES
Parthivjyoti Saikia, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 9
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Review Petition No. 47 Of 2022, Arbitration Appeal No. 8 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 367 words
1.

Hear Mr. P.P. Sarma, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel representing the respondents.

2.

This a common order for these two petitions in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos. 2074-2075/2022.

3.

The appellant and the respondents had an agreement by which the respondents handed over a plot of land to the appellant whereupon the appellant constructed a multistoried building for selling flats and commercial spaces to interested customers. The construction of the building was completed and the flats and commercial spaces were handed over to different persons who paid the price. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the parties. Therefore, the respondents filed an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the District Judge, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati as because there was an arbitration clause in the agreement between the parties. The court below passed an order of injunction vide order dated 07.07.2021 in Misc. Arb. Case No. 18/2021.

4.

The said order of injunction has been upheld by this court also. Hence, these review petitions.

5.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the sides.

6.

The persons, who purchased flats and commercial spaces in the building constructed by the petitioner have paid the major portion of the sale price to the petitioner and also they have executed the necessary sale deeds. Even the electricity connection is given and mutation in the records of rights is also done. But because of the injunction order sale deeds could not be registered.

7.

Now, this court is of the opinion that the people who purchased flats and commercial spaces are not parties to the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents. In that case, they are not bound by any injunction order passed by the District Judge. Therefore, the impugned order stands modified to the extent that the flat owners and the owners of the commercial spaces of the building shall have the liberty to officially register their respective sale deeds, which were executed in their favour by the petitioner.

8.

The review petitions are disposed of accordingly.