TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (1) TMI 1704
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....othonotary and Senior Master along with the interest accrued thereon to the extent payable under the Award up to the date of withdrawal." 2. It arises this way. In 2016, there were disputes between the two parties under a Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") dated 11th August 2011 that pertained to the sale of some TDR by the now-beleaguered Respondent, Housing Development and Infrastructure Limited ("HDIL") to the Applicant, Nahar Builders Limited ("Nahar Builders"). That MoU had an arbitration clause. Nahar Builders fled the present Arbitration Petition No. 74 of 2017 and sought inter alia an order against HDIL to provide security. That came before me on 3rd February 2017 when I made the following order: "1. Ms Panda makes a statement o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lds his frst meeting, and which will be on a date convenient to him after 11th March 2017. 6. If the Respondent does not furnish the bank guarantee, the Respondent will deposit the sum of Rs. 8 crores with the Prothonotary & Senior Master by 11th March 2017, with no extension. On such a deposit being made, the Prothonotary & Senior Master will invest the amount in accordance with his usual practices. 7. Both sides will bear their own costs in the arbitration. They will share equally all arbitration costs, including Mr Shah's fees. 8. The Petition is disposed of in these terms with no order as costs." 3. That order referred the matter to the sole arbitration of the learned senior counsel of this Court. 4. HDIL did not comply with....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thout permission of the Court. It is, therefore, not 'the property' of either party pending an adjudication as to entitlement by the Court. Once the Arbitrator held that it was Nahar Builders that was entitled to this amount, and that award became enforceable as a decree of this court, then no question remained of the amount being claimed by HDIL. In another manner of speaking, from the time the deposit was made until the time withdrawal is ordered, that amount is not the property of either party to the dispute. 8. It is true that an execution against HDIL is presently stayed but this is not an application for execution, nor is it, within the meaning of Section 14(1)(d), an application for 'the recovery of any property by an ow....