w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Smt. Aruna Parwal v/s Cassia Chattels Private Limited

    Suit No. 711-A of 1989

    Decided On, 11 October 1990

    At, High Court of Delhi


    For the Appearing Parties : J. M. Bari, V. N. Kaura, Advocates.

Judgment Text

The Judgment was delivered by :

Shri R. G. Gaggar, sole arbitrator, had filed this petition u/Ss. 14 & 17 of Arbitration Act praying that the award dated 15-12-1988, be taken on the record and after notice is served on parties, the same may be made a rule of the court.

2. The notice of the award was served on both the parties but no objections to the award have been filed. A doubt was expressed by me on p

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

ersuing the contents of the award as to whether the award was liable to be registered compulsorily in view of S. 17 of the Registration Act ? I have heard the arguments for deciding this point.

3. The arbitration agreement shows that both the parties had agreed to refer the following dispute :

"The quantum of compensation to be paid in terms of money to Smt. Aruna Parwal for handing over the vacant possession and all her rights in the back portion of about 2000 sq. metres of land and a building thereon as a tenant or licensee and she was approached for vacating the said portion and the said dispute arose between the parties as to what compensation Smt. Aruna should have for vacating the said portion and for giving up all her rights in the said portion. The award recites these facts and then has tried to assess the value of the property in possession of Smt. Aruna Parwal and together the arbitrator proceeded to make the following order :"

Awarded that M/s. Cassia Chattels Pvt. Ltd. pay a sum of Rs. 1.20 crores for handing over the vacant possession of the rear portion of about 2000 sq. mtrs. of land and building thereon at No. 7, Hailey Road, New Delhi, in favour of M/s. Cassia Chattels Pvt. Ltd. No fees and clerkage charged."

4. The question which arises for decision is whether the award by itself does or does not declare any rights in the immovable property ? Counsel for the respondent, Mr. V. N. Kaura has brought to my notice Capt. (Now Major) Ashok Kashyap v. Mrs. Sudha Vashisht 1987 1 SCC ( = 1987 Raj. LR 108). In the said case there arose a dispute between two sisters and their brother over the properties including immovable property left by their father and the matter was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded to the married daughter a sum of Rs. 40, 800/- on receipt of which she was not to have any right to live in the house and shall be left with no other interest in the said property as legal heir and she was entitled to live in the portion of the house till the amount was paid and she was not liable to pay any rent till she remained in possession. A similar award was made in favour of unmarried daughter plus right to receive maintenance till she got married and a right of residence for life in case she did not get married. This question which arose before the Supreme Court was whether the said award was required to be registered compulsorily ? It was held by the Supreme Court that the award does declare the shares of the parties in the property but it enjoins that upon payment of Rs. 40, 800/- to the married daughter she would vacate the house and upon such payment she will be left with no other interest in the property. The effect of the same was that her right in the said property was to cease on payment of the said amount and not otherwise and not by the operation of the document itself. The document was stated to create a right by itself to get Rs. 40, 800/- and right to obtain the payment and on payment the obligation of relinquishing all her right or interest in the property. The Supreme Court held that the document by itself does not declare or extinguish any rights in the immovable property, so was not required to be registered compulsorily. Similarly, in the present case, the award only declares the right of Smt. Aruna to obtain Rs. 1.20 crores from M/s. Cassia (P) Ltd. as a consideration for handing over possession of the said portion of the immovable property of the said company. It is only on payment of said amount that the right will accrue to the company to get vacant possession of the said portion of the property. The document by itself does not counter any right in the immovable property on the said company. So, following the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, I hold that this award does not require to be registered compulsorily. There is no other legal defect in the award. Award made rule of Court