Mrs Rekha Shankar vs. Sri Kumud Kumar Jha

Facts

This case involves an Arbitration Appeal filed by Mrs. Rekha Shankar against Feacon Construction & Industries Private Limited and its Managing Director, Sri Kumud Kumar Jha. Subsequently, Savita Jaiswal, claiming to be a co-owner of adjoining land and a party to a development agreement with the respondent-builder, filed an interlocutory application to be impleaded as Respondent No. 2. She argued that the dispute regarding property allocation was prejudicial to her interests as she was the owner of land over Municipal Holding No. 2229-A, which was also subject to development. The appellant and the original respondent had no objection to her impleadment. Following this, the parties jointly submitted that a tripartite agreement had been reached through mediation, resolving the dispute concerning the allocation of shares in the 'Heritage Swarnrekha' building, constructed on land owned separately by the appellant and the intervener.

Held

The Court allowed the interlocutory application, impleading Savita Jaiswal as Respondent No. 2, finding her to be a necessary party due to her ownership of adjoining land and her development agreement, which were directly impacted by the dispute over property allocation. Subsequently, the Court noted that the parties, including the appellant, the original respondent, and the intervener, had jointly submitted that a tripartite agreement had been entered into through mediation. This agreement resolved the dispute regarding the allocation of shares in the 'Heritage Swarnrekha' building. The Court disposed of the appeal in terms of this tripartite agreement, directing that the agreement would form part of the order and decree. The reasoning was based on the parties' consensus and the successful mediation process, which aimed to resolve the long-standing dispute over share allocation proportional to land contribution.

Key Issues

1. Whether Savita Jaiswal, as a co-owner and party to a development agreement concerning adjoining land, is a necessary party to the Arbitration Appeal, and if so, should she be impleaded as Respondent No. 2? (Question of fact and law) 2. Whether the dispute regarding the allocation of shares in the 'Heritage Swarnrekha' building, arising from separate development agreements with the appellant and the intervener, can be resolved through a tripartite agreement based on mediation, as directed by the High Court? Contentions: Petitioner (Savita Jaiswal): Argued that she is a necessary party because the dispute over property allocation directly affects her share in the developed property, and the ongoing proceedings without her impleadment are prejudicial to her interests. She relied on her ownership of adjoining land and her development agreement. Revenue/State: Not applicable in this matter as it is an arbitration appeal concerning a private dispute and not a tax matter.