Property of Suncity Projects attached

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 3

Less than a month after the Punjab and Haryana High Court castigated the UT Additional District Judge for his failure to order the attachment of a property belonging to Suncity Projects Private Limited, its “tower” in Panchkula stands attached.

The attachment came soon after the Chandigarh District Judge not only issued warrants for the same, but also delivered prohibitory orders. The developments took place in a pending case between Raja Ram Corn Products and Suncity Projects Private Limited. Suncity Projects was earlier asked to furnish a security of Rs 24 crore within four weeks in favour of Raja Ram Corn Products. In case of failure, tower number 3-A, Parikarma Group Housing Society, Sector 20, Panchkula, was ordered to be attached.

Attachment orders

Taking up the matter, Chandigarh District and Sessions Judge SK Aggarwal asserted that Suncity Projects had failed to furnish the security and was hereby “prohibited and restrained until the further order of this court from transferring or charging the property” by sale gift or otherwise. Judge Aggarwal also specified that “all persons” were hereby prohibited from receiving the same by purchase, gift or otherwise.

In the warrant of attachment, Judge Aggarwal directed the bailiff of a court in Panchkula to attach the immovable property of Suncity Projects. Complying with the orders, the Panchkula bailiff subsequently pasted the attachment order at the tower after the beating of drums or “munadi”. Officials of Suncity Projects also received a copy of the attachment warrants.

The controversy

Raja Ram Products had earlier filed an application under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act for interim protection in the form appropriate security by the respondents for recovery of Rs 20 crore along with interest.

The Additional District Judge, Ranjit Kumar Jain, vide order dated January 27, dismissed the application. Disposing of the appeal on May 29, the High Court asserted that the Additional District Judge’s order on January 27 was not sustainable in the eye of law.

The High Court also directed the respondent to furnish a security of Rs 24 crore before the Additional District Judge. If the security was not furnished within four weeks, “tower No. 3-A, Parikrama Group Housing Society, Sector 20, Panchkula”, was ordered to be attached. The attachment was to continue till the award, if finally affirmed in favour of the appellant, was satisfied.

In pursuance of the order, the appellant filed an application for attaching the tower. However, the plea was dismissed by Judge Ranjit Kumar Jain. The appellant then filed the present appeal against the order dated July 13, passed by the Additional District Judge, vide which their application for attaching the tower was dismissed.

Taking up the matter, Justice Kuldip Singh of the High Court had asserted: “By not implementing the order of this court, the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, has shown defiance to this court. Rather, his order is against propriety….  

“Keeping in view the extraordinary situation where the Additional District Judge is acting contrary to the law and in defiance of the order of this court, the arbitration case titled Suncity Projects Pvt Ltd versus M/s Raja Ram Corn Products Punjab Pvt Ltd and others, is withdrawn from his court and transferred to the court of the District Judge, Chandigarh, with a direction to conclude the arguments and dispose of the same within two months….”

The background

A dispute arose between the parties out of collaboration agreement between the parties to develop a nearly 5.5-acre plot in Mohali. 

Thereafter, an arbitral tribunal of Justice Kuldip Singh, Justice Manmohan Singh Liberhan and Justice GC Mittal was constituted by the Punjab and  Haryana High Court. 

The tribunal held that Raja Ram Corn was entitled to forfeit the security amount of Rs 10 crore and recover future amount of Rs 20 crore with 12 per cent interest from the date of award till the date of recovery.  

Suncity then filed objections against the award, which are pending before theDistrict Courts, Chandigarh.