Calcutta High Court
Jagat Singh Manot vs The Municipal Commissioner on 10 April, 2025
Page |1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
ORIGINAL SIDE
RESERVED ON: 03.04.2025
DELIVERED ON: 10 .04.2025
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAURANG KANTH
W.P.O. 503 OF 2024
JAGAT SINGH MANOT
VERSUS
THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, KOLKATA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND
ORS.
Appearance:-
Mr. Anujit Mookherjee, Adv.
Mr. Harsh Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. Aurin Chakraborty, Adv.
Mr. Bhupendra Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Anwar Hossain, Adv.
.....For the Petitioner
Mr. Arif Ali, Adv.
Mr. Sarban Bhattacharjee, Adv.
.....................For the Respondent nos. 6&7
Mr. Gurudas Mitra, Adv.
Ms. Piyali Sengupta, Adv.
...........................For the KMC.
JUDGMENT
Gaurang Kanth, J.
1. The petitioner in the present writ petition is challenging the letter dated
22.04.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 3 whereby they refused to de-
Page |2
amalgamate the premises No. 202/4, Harish Mukherjee Road, PS
Kalighat, Kolkata-700026 on the basis of the Arbitral awards and advised
the petitioner to cancel the deed of exchange from the appropriate
authority for effecting the de-amalgamation of the premises in question.
2. The facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows:
3. The petitioner along with his deceased wife was the co-owner of a piece
and parcel of land ad-measuring about 2 cottahs, 13 chittacks
(approximately) along with a three-storied building standing thereon,
which was lying and situated at premises No. 220/4, Harish Mukherjee
Road, PS -Kalighat, Kolkata-700 026 (“First Premises”).
4. The private respondent Nos. 5-11 are the owners of a piece and parcel of
land ad-measuring 12 cottaha, 14 chittacks and 11 sq.ft (approximately)
which was lying and situated at premises No. 120, Hazra Road, PS-
Kalighat, Kolkata-700 026 (“Second Premises”).
5. Both the petitioner and his wife on the one side and respondent Nos. 5-
11 on the other side, decided to amalgamate their plots with an intention
to avail the additional FAR. Hence they entered into a registered ‘Deed of
Exchange’ dated 26.03.2012 whereby they granted, transferred and
conveyed to each other by way of exchange undivided 1/20 th part or
share in each of the said premises simultaneously.
6. Thereafter the petitioner and his wife along with the private respondent
Nos. 5-11 jointly approached the respondent Municipal Corporation for
the amalgamation of the first and second premises. The said request was
Page |3
allowed and an amalgamation certificate dated 27.11.2012 was issued
amalgamating the first and second premises and renumbered it as
No.202/4, Harish Mukherjee Road, PS Kalighat, Kolkata 700 026
(“premise in question”).
7. The said premises in question was jointly mutated in the name of all the
joint owners, i.e, petitioner, his wife and respondent Nos. 5-11.
8. After amalgamation of the premises, the parties jointly entered into a
development agreement dated 18.11.2013 with respondent Nos. 12 &13
for the development of the amalgamated premises. The said development
agreement was duly registered in accordance with law.
9. Subsequently, respondent Municipality sanctioned a building plan for the
construction of a proposed new building on the said premises in
question.
10. At a later stage, disputes cropped up between the parties, i.e, petitioner
and his wife on one side and respondent Nos. 5-11 on the other side w.r.t
the development agreement. Since there was an arbitration clause in the
said development agreement dated 18.11.2013, the said disputes were
referred to the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of the sole Arbitrator Mr.
Dipak Chakraborty, Advocate, Calcutta High Court.
11. It is pertinent to mention that the name of respondent No. 13 was struck
off by the Registrar of Companies at that point in time and hence
respondent No. 13 was not party to the said arbitration. Respondent Nos.
5-11 challenged the appointment of the said sole arbitrator. Learned
Page |4
Arbitrator decided the said objection against the respondent Nos. 5-11.
Thereafter, they failed to participate in the said arbitration proceedings.
Hence only the petitioner and respondent No. 12 participated in the
arbitration proceedings.
12. The learned Sole Arbitrator passed an award dated 16.02.2018 granting
the following relief to the parties:
a) the cancelled development agreement dated 18.11.2013
which was registered with the Additional District Sub-
Registrar, Alipore in Book No. 1, being Deed No. 00576 for
the year 2014 is hereby cancelled and the claimants shall
have the liberty to go for formal recording the said
cancellation by way of a Deed of cancellation duly registered
with the registering authority before whom the development
agreement dated 18.11.2013 was earlier registered even in
absence any of the parties to the said agreement together
with the related power of attorney, since the said documents
have already become nugatory and nonest in the eye of law.
b) The deed of Exchange dated 26.03.2012 duly registered with
the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Alipore recorded in
Book No. 1, Volume No. 11, Pages 3325 to 3350 being No.
02469 for the year 2012 is hereby cancelled. The claimants
are at liberty to get the same formally cancelled by way of
registering the deed of cancellation of the said deed of
exchange before the said registering authority even in
absence or any of the parties therein.
c) The respective parties shall be at liberty to separate their
respective premises owned by them in the records of the KMC
authority by effecting the separation of the amalgamated
premises No. 202/4, Harish Mukherjee Road, Kolkata with
Page |5
the respective original status and title of the two properties,
by virtue of this award.
d) The claimants shall appoint the Respondent No. 10 as their
developer to develop their separated premises No. 202/4,
Harish Mukherjee Road, originally owned by the claimants,
after getting the said premises separated from the
amalgamated premises in terms of this award as stated
hereinbefore.
e) The claimants and the Respondents No. 10 equally shared
the arbitration expenses and the fees of the Arbitrator
accordingly.
13. Thereafter, a joint petition was filed by the parties before the learned Sole
Arbitrator u/s 33(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for
rectification of the earlier award dated 16.02.2018. Hence while
exercising the power vested in him u/s 33(5) read with Section 30 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, learned Sole Arbitrator passed an
amended Award dated 05.12.2018. While passing the amended award, he
modified the relief as follows:
a) The Registered Development Agreement dated 18.11.2013
registered with the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Alipore in
Book No.1, Deed No.00576 for the year 2014 which was
executed by and between the parties thereto M/s Dharmick
Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. being non-existence on the
said date of execution in the Book of Registrar of Companies
can hereby cancelled and nugatory.
b) The Deed of Exchange dated 26.03.2012 registered with the
Additional District Sub-Registrar, Alipore recorded in Book No.
1, Volume No. II, Pages 3325 to 3350, being No. 02469 for the
Page |6year 2012 is hereby stands nugatory and cancelled by this
Amended Award.
c) The respective parties shall be at liberty to separate their
respective premises owned by them in the records of the KMC
authority by effecting the separation of the amalgamated
premises No. 202/4, Harish Mukherjee Road, Kolkata with
the respective original status and title of the two properties,
being the premises No. 120, Hazra Road, Kolkata-700025 and
202/4, Harish Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-700025 by me in
terms of this Award.
d) The claimants shall appoint the Respondent No. 10 therein
and 9 herein as their Developer to develop their separated
premises No. 202/4, Harish Mukherjee Road, originally
owned by the claimants, after getting the said premises
separated from the, amalgamated premises in terms of this
Award as stated hereinbefore.
e) Maya Chatterjee who was one of the owners died on
15.9.2015 her share in the property has been already being
distributed among her legal heirs being respondent Nos. 1 to 8
herein.
f) The claimants and respondent Nos. 1 to 9 herein equally
shared the arbitration expenses and the fees of the Arbitrator
accordingly.
14. Subsequently, after the revival by the registrar of companies, the
respondent No. 13 (who was not party to the earlier arbitration
proceedings) filed a money suit being Suit No. 771/2022 before the Court
of Civil Judge (senior Division), 4th Court at Alipore seeking, inter alia, a
decree of Rs. 2,85,00,000/- along with interest. Respondent No. 13
preferred an interim application in the said suit seeking an injunction
Page |7
and attachment of the said premises in question. Learned Trial Court,
vide order dated 28.12.2022, allowed the said application. Against the
said order dated 28.12.2022, appeals being FMAT 513/2022 and FMAT
516/2022 was preferred before this Court. Hon’ble Division Bench of this
Court, with the consent of the parties, was pleased to dispose of the said
appeals vide order dated 10.08.2023 by referring the parties to
arbitration. The Hon’ble Division Bench appointed Hon’ble Justice (Retd)
Ranjit Kumar Bag as the sole arbitrator for adjudicating the disputes
between the parties arising out of the Development Agreement dated
18.11.2013.
15. However, the respondent No. 13 being the Claimant in the arbitration
proceedings never filed the claim Petition before the sole arbitrator and
hence finally vide minutes of meeting dated 08.01.2024, sole arbitrator
terminated the said arbitration proceedings.
16. Based on the arbitration awards, the petitioner and his wife preferred an
application dated 19.02.2024 before the respondent Municipal
Corporation for de-amalgamation of the premises in question.
Respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 22.04.2024 informed the Petitioner
that the amalagamated premises could not be de-amalgamated on the
basis of the minutes of 4th sitting of the Arbitral tribunal held on
08.01.2024 since the Deed of Exchange is in force and valid. The
respondent No. 3 further advised the Petitioner to cancel the deed of
Page |8
exchange from the appropriate authority for De-amalgamation of the
premises in question.
17. Being aggrieved by the stand taken by the respondent Municipality, the
petitioner preferred the present writ petition.
18. Affidavit in opposition was filed on behalf the respondent Municipal
Corporation and private respondent Nos. 5-11. Petitioner filed exception
to the said affidavits. Parties also filed their respective written note of
argument along with the Judgments.
19. With the consent of all the parties, the matter was taken up for hearing.
Argument on behalf of the Petitioner
20. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a dispute related to the
cancellation of an instrument under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is a
dispute in personam and hence it is arbitrable. In order to substantiate
this point, he relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Sushma Shivkumar Daga Vs Madhurkumar Ramkrishanji Bajaj &
Ors reported as 2023 SCC Online SC 1683, Asian Avenues (P) Ltd Vs
Syed Shoukat Hussain reported as 2024 (6) SCC 630, and unreported
judgment of Telangana High Court in Arb. Application No. 34/2020
titled as M/s Savera Construction Pvt. Ltd Vs M/s Aditya
Construction Company & Anr. In view of the said legal position,
Learned Counsel for the petitioner emphasis that the learned Sole
arbitrator had validly cancelled the deed of exchange dated 26.03.2012
Page |9
by way of his award dated 16.02.2018 and the amended award dated
05.12.2018.
21. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that the additional
award dated 05.12.2018 is a valid document in the eyes of law as the
said award was drawn up in terms of Section 33 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
22. Learned Counsel for the petitioner again submits that the arbitration
award dated 16.02.2018 and the amended award dated 05.12.2018 has
been duly registered before the District Sub Registrar, Alipore, South 24
Parganas in terms of Section 17 (c) of the Registration act, 1908. Further
the said award is duly registered and stamped in terms of Schedule I-A of
the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 as applicable to the State of West Bengal.
Hence the respondent Municipal Corporation ought to have acted in
terms of the true spirit of the said arbitral awards.
23. Learned Counsel lastly pointed out that the pendency of the civil
litigation cannot be a taken as a ground for refusing the de-
amalgamation of the premises in question. In order to substantiate the
said point, the petitioner relied upon Chanda @ Sandhya Rani
Chakraborty Vs Chabi Palui reported as 2010 (4) CHN 231 (Cal) (DB),
Miss Shova @ Kumari Shova Das Vs The Howrah Municipal
Corporation & Ors 2017 SCC Online Cal 286.
24. With these submissions, Learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for
the issuance of a writ of mandamus against the respondent Municipality
P a g e | 10
for de-amalgamating the said premises as the deed of exchange is already
stands cancelled.
Argument of behalf of the Respondent Municipality
25. Learned Counsel for the respondent Municipality submits that the
arbitration clause was available only in the Development Agreement. No
arbitration clause was available in the Deed of exchange. Hence
arbitration can be invoked only in respect of any dispute arising out of
the aforesaid development agreement dated 18.11.2013. The award as
well as amended award passed by the arbitrator cancelling the deed of
exchange dated 26.03.2012, which was executed prior point in time, is
without jurisdiction, nullity, nonest and not binding upon the Municipal
authorities.
26. Learned Counsel further submits that an order or decree passed on any
subject matter upon which the court or other authority has no
jurisdiction, such order or decree can be treated as a nullity and nonest
and cannot have any binding effect. The same can be questioned in any
subsequent collateral proceedings. Hence the Municipality authorities are
entitled to seek the proper registered documents cancelling the deed of
exchange for effecting the separation in respect of the premises in
question. Learned Counsel for the respondent relies on Bharat Coking
Coal Vs Annapurna Construction reported as 2003 (8) SCC 154, IOCL
Vs Shree Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar reported as 2022 (4) SCC
463, FCI Vs Chandu Construction reported as 2007 (4)SCC 697,
P a g e | 11
Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (deceased) through Lrs Vs Jasjit Singh &
Ors reported as 1993 (2) SCC 507, Abbas Sayyad Vs Usman Abbas
Sayyad reported as 2007 (2) SCC 355, Balwant N Viswamitra & Ors
Vs Yadav Sadashiv Mule (Dead) through Lrs reported as 2004 (8) SCC
706 and Swarup Singh & Ors Vs UOI reported as 2011 (11) SCC 198.
27. Learned Counsel further pointed out that while referring the disputes to
arbitration by the Hon’ble Division Bench, the petitioner never pointed
out the existence of award dated 16.02.2018 or amended award dated
05.12.2018. Hence the petitioner willingly abandoned his alleged claim
under the said award and now the petitioner cannot claim any benefit
out of that.
28. Learned Counsel for the respondent Municipality again argued that the
petitioner executed a deed of exchange and applied for amalgamation.
Now without cancelling the said registered deed of exchange by another
registered instrument under Section 17(b) of the registration Act, he
cannot pray for the separation of the said properties.
29. Learned Counsel for the Municipality also emphasized that the amended
award dated 05.12.2018 is beyond the scope of Section 33 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
30. Learned Counsel also raised the plea of limitation as the deed of
exchange was registered on 26.03.2012 and as per Schedule 59 of the
Limitation Act, the learned Arbitrator cancelled the same after 5 years
and hence it is barred by limitation.
P a g e | 12
31. In view of the aforesaid submission, the Learned Counsel for the
respondent Municipality prayed for the dismissal of the present writ
Petition.
Arguments on behalf of the private respondents
32. Learned Counsel for the private respondents adopted the arguments
advanced by the Learned Counsel for the respondent Municipality. In
addition to all those pleas, Learned Counsel for the private respondent
challenged the locus of the petitioner to maintain the present writ
petition. According to him, the petitioner and his wife were having 1/20 th
share in the premises in question. During the pendency of the present
proceedings, the wife of the petitioner expired leaving the petitioner and
her 2 sons and one daughter as her legal heirs. Petitioner vide separate
gift deeds gifted his share of the property to his son Sh. Sumit Kumar
Manot and hence the petitioner is left with no interest in the premises in
question. In order to substantiate this point, he handed over copies of 2
gift deeds. Since the petitioner is not the owner of the property in
question, he has no locus standi to maintain the present writ petition.
33. With this submission, Learned Counsel for the private respondents prays
for the dismissal of the present writ petition.
Legal Analysis
34. This Court had heard the arguments advanced by the parties and
carefully examined the Judgments relied on by the parties and perused
the records.
P a g e | 13
35. Learned Counsel for the private respondents raised an objection qua the
maintainability of the present writ petition alleging that the petitioner
gifted his share of the property to his son and hence he has no locus
standi to maintain the present writ petition. This position is disputed by
the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per his
instruction, the petitioner is still retaining a small portion of the
premises. The private respondents raised this objection for the first time
at the time of argument. No such objection was raised in their Affidavit in
opposition. Hence no opportunity was given to the petitioner to confront
with the said allegations. Be that as it may, there is no dispute to the fact
that at the time of filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner had the
locus standi to maintain the present writ petition. Since the private
respondents raised the objection qua the locus of the petitioner to
maintain the present writ petition during the course of the arguments,
this Court is not inclined to entertain the said plea at this stage.
36. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, this Court deems it
appropriate to examine the legal provisions relating to the transfer of
immovable properties by way of exchange and cancellation of an
exchange deed.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882
37. Chapter VI of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 deals with ‘Exchanges’.
As per Section 118 of the said Act, Exchange means “When two persons
mutually transfer the ownership of one thing for the ownership of another,
P a g e | 14
neither thing or both things being money only, the transaction is called an
“exchange”. Section 118 further says that “A transfer of property in
completion of an exchange can be made only in manner provided for the
transfer of such property by sale”. How a sale is to be effected is explained
in Section 54. As per Section 54, transfer of a tangible immovable
property whose value is more than hundred rupees can be transferred
only by way of a registered instrument.
38. Hence from the combined reading of all these provisions makes it clear
that two or more persons can mutually transfer the ownership of an
immovable property with the ownership of another immovable property
by way of a registered instrument.
Specific Relief Act, 1963
39. Chapter V of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 deals with cancellation of an
instrument. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, reads as follows:
When cancellation may be ordered. — (1) Any person against
whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has
reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding
may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or
voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and
order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy
P a g e | 15of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so
registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument
contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.
40. In view of Section 31 (1) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, an instrument
can be cancelled only under 2 circumstances:
(i) If the said instrument is void or voidable against the person
concerned.
(ii) When both parties mutually agree to cancel the deed.
In the first case, the person concerned needs to sue to have the
said instrument adjudged void or voidable, and the court may, in its
discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
Limitation Act, 1963
41. As per entry 59 of the Limitation Act, the time limit prescribed for the
cancellation of an instrument is 3 years from the date of knowledge.
42. This being the basic law relating to the transfer of an immovable property
by way of exchange, this Court now proceeds to examine the facts of the
present case.
43. In the present case vide registered deed of exchange dated 26.03.2012
entered between the petitioner and his wife on one side and respondent
Nos. 5-11 on the other side, they granted, transferred and conveyed to
each other by way of exchange undivided 1/20 th part or share in each of
the said premises simultaneously.
P a g e | 16
44. Hence by virtue of the said exchange deed, petitioner, his wife and
respondent Nos. 5-11, all of them became co-owners of the said premises
in question. In order to strengthen the said transaction further, the
parties jointly approached the respondent Corporation for amalgamation
of their separate properties. Based on the said exchange deed, the
respondent Corporation amalgamated the first and second premises and
issued amalgamation certificate dated 27.11.2022 and renumbered the
premises in question as property No.202/4, Harish Mukherjee Road, PS
Kalighat, Kolkata 700 026.
45. Hence the Deed of exchange is a valid legal document which creates
rights in favour of the parties involved therein. The said document can be
cancelled only in accordance with Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act
within the time frame as prescribed in the Limitation Act.
46. In the present case, the parties approached the Arbitral Tribunal by
invoking an arbitration clause in the Development Agreement dated
18.11.2013. During the said procedure, the learned Sole Arbitrator
initially cancelled the Development Agreement dated 18.11.2013 and
Deed of exchange dated 26.03.2012 and granted liberty to the petitioner
to approach the registering authority for the formal recording of the said
registration. Subsequently, vide amended arbitration award dated
05.12.2018, the learned Sole Arbitrator amended the said award by
invoking Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
whereby the liberty granted to the petitioner for approaching the
P a g e | 17
Registering Authority for the formal recording of the said cancellation was
omitted. The parties were again relegated to Arbitration by the Hon’ble
Division bench of this Court, without realizing that the parties had
already adjudicated their disputes before the Arbitral Tribunal. None of
the parties deems it appropriate to point out the factum of Award dated
16.02.2018 or amended award dated 05.12.2018 to the Hon’ble Division
bench. Learned Sole Arbitrator terminated the said second arbitration as
the Claimant in the said proceedings never filed any Claim Petition
therein.
47. Learned Counsel for the respondents raised various objections regarding
the legality of the arbitration award dated 16.02.2018 and amended
award dated 05.12.2018. The main thrust of his argument is that the
Award dated 16.02.2018 and amended award dated 05.12.2018 are
passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator without jurisdiction and hence it
can be treated as a nullity and nonest and cannot have any binding effect
on any third party and the same can be questioned in any subsequent
collateral proceedings.
48. This Court is conscious of the fact that it is not exercising jurisdiction
under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Learned
Sole Arbitrator passed the award dated 16.02.2018 and amended award
dated 05.12.2018. The said award was never challenged by the parties
and it attained finality. In the second round of arbitration also, the
learned sole Arbitrator terminated the proceedings noting that the
P a g e | 18
interest of the parties were taken care of by these awards. In the present
proceedings this Court is not called upon to examine the legality of the
said award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator and in view of the same,
this Court is refrained from making any observation regarding the legality
of the said arbitration award dated 16.02.2018 and amended award
dated 05.12.2018.
49. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited various judgments to
substantiate that the disputes between the parties were arbitrable in
nature and hence the arbitration proceedings and awards passed therein
are legal in character having binding effect. This Court is in respectful
agreement with all the said judicial pronouncements and hence not
intended to delve much on the said issue.
50. Be that as it may, the only question to be answered by this Court at this
stage in the present proceedings is whether the award passed by the
learned Sole Arbitrator is binding on the respondent Municipal
Corporation or not. If the said award passed by the learned Sole
Arbitrator is judgment in rem, then it is applicable to the respondent
Municipality as well. But if it is judgment in personam, then it will be
binding on the parties to the dispute only.
51. A judgment in rem is one pronounced upon the status of some particular
person or thing and which binds all persons in the world. A judgment in
rem is conclusive not only against the parties to it but also against the
entire world. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Bihar v. Radha
P a g e | 19
Krishna Singh, reported as AIR 1983 SC 684 explained it further with
examples by observing that “It is well settled that a judgment in rem like
judgments passed in probate, insolvency, matrimonial, or guardianship, or
other similar proceedings, is admissible in all cases whether such
judgments are inter parties or not”
52. A judgment in personam is an ordinary judgment between parties in
cases of contract, tort or crime. The rights and liabilities of the parties to
the suit are determined in such judgments. These judgments bind only
the parties or privies to the suit. It does not bind the entire world. A
judgment in personam is only conclusive between the parties and privies.
A judgment given in a contractual dispute is judgment in personam.
53. This Court is also guided by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Decan Paper Mills Company Ltd Vs Regency Mahavir
Properties Ors reported as 2021 (4) SCC 786. In this case, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court was examining the issue of whether the dispute involving
the cancellation of written agreements are arbitrable or not in view of
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as
follows:
“Judged by these authorities, it is clear that the proceeding under
Section 31 is with reference to specific persons and not with
reference to all who may be concerned with the property
underlying the instrument or ”all the world”. Clearly, the
cancellation of the instrument under Section 31 is as between the
parties to the action and their privies and not against all persons
generally. As the instrument that is cancelled is to be delivered to
P a g e | 20the plaintiff in the cancellation suit. A Judgment delivered under
Section 31 does not bind all persons claiming an interest in the
property inconsistent with the Judgment, even though pronounced
in their absence.”
54. Otherwise also it is the petitioner’s own case that the dispute between
the parties were dispute in personam and hence it is arbitrable in nature.
55. In view of the detailed discussions herein above, this Court is of the
considered view that the decision rendered by the Arbitral Tribunal vide
award dated 16.02.2018 and 05.12.2018 are judgment in personam
arising out of private dispute and it is not binding on a third party. The
respondent Corporation being a third party to the said Arbitral awards,
this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the stand taken by the
respondent Corporation.
56. In view thereof, the present writ Petition is dismissed.
(Gaurang Kanth, J.)
SAKIL P.A.