Rakesh Kumar Jindal v. Manju Mehta

$~14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ARB. A. (COMM.) 35/2023, I.A. 6870/2024, I.A. 17528/2023 and I.A. 17526/2023 RAKESH KUMAR JINDAL .....Appellant Through:

Mr. Gautam Singhal, Mr. Karan Nagpal and Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Advocates.

versus MANJU MEHTA .....Respondent Through:

Mr.

Vaibhav Sethi, Ms.

Priya Pathania and Mr. Abul Hasan Khan, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

O R D E R

% 06.05.2025 1.

This appeal is preferred by the Appellant challenging the impugned order dated 27.02.2023, whereby the learned Arbitrator has passed the following directions:- "28. Therefore, the following directions are issued to the Respondent: I. Respondent shall promptly furnish/ file before this Tribunal (in any case within seven days of its making), any Agreement to Sell/ Collaboration Agreement/ Development Agreement or any other Agreement by which the land rights in the subject property are likely to be affected.

II. Respondent shall also promptly furnish/ file before this Tribunal (in any case within seven days of its making), any OTS or Agreement, and/ or any other document that may have any material bearing on the pending loan account with the bank.

III. It is further clarified that the said direction shall continue to apply unless modified by this Tribunal or any law subsequently." ARB. A. (COMM.) 35/2023 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 23:31:14

2.

Learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the impugned order was passed on an application filed by the Appellant under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('1996 Act') for interim relief, which was declined, however, during the pendency of this appeal, on conclusion of final arguments, the learned Arbitrator has reserved the award on 25.05.2024 and this appeal is rendered infructuous.

3.

This Court finds merit in the submission of the counsel for the Respondent. The impugned order was passed by the Arbitrator on an application filed by the Appellant under Section 17 of the 1996 Act for grant of interim relief during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings. Once the arbitral award has been reserved, no purpose will be achieved in adjudicating the appeal. The same is disposed of as infructuous making it clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all rights and contentions of the parties are left open to be agitated in appropriate proceedings.

4.

Pending applications are also disposed of.

JYOTI SINGH, J MAY 06, 2025/RW/shivam ARB. A. (COMM.) 35/2023 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 30/06/2025 at 23:31:14