Vidushi Sharma v. Rohan Khosla
$~86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CONT.CAS(C) 1292/2022 VIDUSHI SHARMA .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Ujwal Ghai, Adv.
versus ROHAN KHOSLA .....Respondent Through:
Mr. Ashim Vachher, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Kunal Lakra, Advs. with respondent in person
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANISH DAYAL
O R D E R
% 22.05.2025 1.
Pursuant to the previous order, affidavit has been filed by the respondent stating that the property bearing flat No. 305, Vatika Technology Park, Gurgaon ('Vatika property'), which formed part of clause 9 of the settlement arrived at in 2008, has been sold by him in 2011 for Rs. 36 lakhs, out of which one-third share has come to him. 2.
The one-third share of Rs.12 lakhs has been then paid by him to his aunt, for a return of a friendly loan of Rs.13.5 lakhs, which had been taken at that stage.
3.
He then states, that he is 50% owner of the commercial space in 'SPIRE EDGE' which is worth Rs.50 lakhs, along with his brother, for which he is willing to give the rights to his daughters. 4.
Several issues arise in respect of this assertion which has been made The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
by Mr. Khosla, who is led by Mr. Ashim Vachher, Senior Advocate: i.
Clause 9 of the settlement had an estimated valuation of Rs.80 lakhs of the said Vatika property, whereas, the value which is being stated now of 2011 is Rs.36 lakhs. Considering that the settlement was arrived at in 2008 and the property was sold in 2011 for a depressed value, this issue raises a serious concern.
ii.
Documents relating to said Vatika property, produced by Mr. Rohan Khosla, is only an agreement to sell dated 22nd July 2011. Pursuant to a query to Mr. Vachher, it transpires that there is no sale deed and possession has already been transferred to a third party. In this regard, documents post the agreement to sell, shall be placed on record since the Court is not willing to accept that a property can be transferred to a third party, without proper conveyancing documents. iii.
The story regarding the use of Rs.12 lakhs to repay a loan taken from the aunt, is as per Mr. Vachher, through bank transactions; the same records are directed to be produced by Mr. Khosla. iv.
The property in 'SPIRE EDGE', which is being offered by the respondent, is as per Mr. Madhav Khurana, Senior Counsel for the petitioner, mired in controversy, with the promoters being in jail pursuant to proceedings initiated by the Division Bench. He states he had personal knowledge of it as a counsel, since he has appeared in the criminal proceedings in this regard. Mr. Khurana and his instructing counsel shall examine the current status of 'SPIRE EDGE' and place the relevant details on record.
v.
On the same issue, Mr. Khosla shall place on record by way of affidavit, the current status of 'SPIRE EDGE' and whether there are The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
other occupants in the complex and whether it is a running society or not and details of the same, with photographs of the apartment and the complex.
5.
In the meantime, Mr. Khosla will deposit an amount of Rs.12 lakhs in the Registry of this Court, which will be kept in an interest-bearing fixed deposit.
6.
Counsel for the petitioner points out that as per clause 9 of the settlement, the sale of Vatika property ought to have resulted in reinvestment in another property, which never happened. He further contends that 'SPIRE EDGE' is a parallel investment made by the respondent; that too is, potentially, in a quandary.
7.
Concerned information by the parties will be filed by way of affidavits, which will be filed within next 6 weeks, and shall be exchanged inter se counsels.
8.
List on 15th November 2025.
9.
Order be uploaded on the website of this Court. ANISH DAYAL, J MAY 22, 2025/sm/na The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.