Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1150 (PNJ)

Nitishree International Pvt. Ltd. v. K. N. Shukla

2009-07-14

A.N.JINDAL

body2009
JUDGMENT A.N. Jindal, J. (Oral) - This revision petition, preferred by the petitioners, is against the order dated 11.02.2009, passed in an execution by Additional District Judge. Amritsar, whereby the objection petition, filed by the petitioners, against the execution has been dismissed being not maintainable. 2. The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that since the award was qua the transfer of the property of the value of more than 100, therefore, the award required registration. 3. Having perused the award dated 26.04.2007, it transpires as under :- "That the second party either through themselves or through any nominee thereof shall have the absolute right to purchase the land situated at Amritsar (herein referred to as Amritsar Project land owned by M/s Nitishree Infrastructures Ltd. and by Associated Companies for consideration to be decided by the second party or nominee thereof within a period of three years from the signing of this agreement, however, it is clarified that elapse of the said three year shall not annul or affect the said right of second party in any manner whatsoever. The pre-emptive right of purchase of second party either through themselves or through any nominee thereof, shall be absolute and original title deeds in respect of said land at Amritsar land shall be kept in custody of second party and receipt thereof shall be given to the NIL and or Associated Companies on the date of signing of this agreement." From the perusal of the aforesaid terms of the agreement, it transpires that only an absolute right to purchase was given but property was not transferred. However, it was to be transferred by way of a registered document. As such, the contention of learned counsel for the objector that the award was required to be registered is not tenable. 4. As regards the second objection that award was not passed against M/s Vishnu Rupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. 517-A Narain Manzil, 23, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi, therefore, he could not execute the award. In this regard, it may be observed that learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the award had authorized respondents No. 1 to 4 to convey the property in the name of any person, therefore, as a precautionary measure M/s Vishnu Rupa Developers Pvt. Ltd. has been inserted as a party alongwith the decree holder. Therefore, this objection also cannot be sustained. Therefore, this objection also cannot be sustained. 5. As regards the third objection that this property could not be transferred without consideration and the consideration has not been decided by the Executing Court Clause 5.5 of the award reveals that the consideration was to be decided by the petitioners, therefore, in view of specific clause in the award, the petitioners are estopped to raise such objections. Having gone through the impugned order, the same is well founded and well reasoned. No fault could be found with the same. Finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.