VIKRAM DOGRA & Anr. v. DEVENDER KUMAR & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Viewed thus, the present petition is hereby dismissed as it does not
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Viewed thus, the present petition is hereby dismissed as it does not disclose any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 9. All the rights and contentions of the petitioners are reserved. 10. Pending application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. JULY 11…
Judgment
Through: Mr. Gaurav Kumar and Mr.Raj Kapoor, Advocates. versus DEVENDER KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr Aditya Shanda, Mr. Vipin Shrivastava and Mr. Rajendra Vats, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral)
Petitioners are non-claimants before the learned Arbitral Tribunal. Earlier, the learned Tribunal had framed issue No.1 on 23.12.2024 which reads as under:- “i. Whether the Lease Agreement dated 05.10.2020 (Annexure CX-1) is a valid agreement? (OPR)” However, subsequently, on the basis of the application moved by the non-claimants, the abovesaid issue was modified in the following terms:- “i. Whether the Lease Agreement dated 05.10.2020 (Annexure CX-1) is an invalid agreement? (OPR)” The grievance raised by the petitioners herein is to the effect that since
the agreement in question was void ab initio, instead of using the word Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:14.07.2025 14:20:54 CM(M) 770/2025 1 “invalid”, the learned Sole Arbitral Tribunal should have used the word “void ab initio”.
This Court is conscious and mindful of the fact that the scope of interference in such type of matters is very restricted and constricted. This Court in Kelvin Air Conditioning & Ventilation System (P) Ltd. v. Triumph Reality (P) Ltd., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7137 observed that judicial inference in such type of matters has to be minimal and recourse to Article 227 of the Constitution of India has to be under exceptional circumstances when it is shown that such order is absolutely perverse.
The abovesaid procedural order does not contain any illegality or perversity and does not suggest any exceptional situation, warranting interference by this Court.
Moreover, there cannot be any dispute that in terms of the evidence to be adduced by the respective parties, the learned Tribunal can give appropriate finding with respect to the nature of said agreement.
Operative part
Viewed thus, the present petition is hereby dismissed as it does not disclose any reason to interfere with the impugned order. 9. All the rights and contentions of the petitioners are reserved. 10. Pending application also stands disposed of in aforesaid terms. JULY 11, 2025/sw/SS (MANOJ JAIN) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SONIA THAPLIYAL Signing Date:14.07.2025 14:20:54 CM(M) 770/2025 2
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Viewed thus, the present petition is hereby dismissed as it does not
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Delhi High Court, on 11 Jul 2025. The bench was MANOJ JAIN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.