Mrs. Hema Khattar & Anr. vs Shiv Khera
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 425; 2017 INSC 324
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Madan B. Lokur & Hon’ble Justice R. K. Agrawal
Forum: Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 8837 of 2016
Date of Decision: April 10, 2017

Facts & Background:

  • Hema Khattar, wife of Ashwani Khattar, conducting business in construction under M/s Dessignz were the Appellants Nos. 1 and 2, respectively.
  • Shiv Khera was the Respondent.
  • An agreement was executed between the Appellant and the Respondent on 06.06.2009 for reconstructing the Respondent's property at C-6/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, with construction commencing on 09.11.2010.
  • In March 2011, a spot inspection revealed structural deficiencies in the construction, prompting the Respondent to issue a legal notice on 19.09.2011, claiming damages, invoking Clause 33 for arbitration, and seeking Rs. 39.85 lakhs and Rs. 35,000.
  • The Appellants instituted CS(OS) No. 1532 of 2012 before the Delhi High Court, seeking declarations, a permanent injunction, and a recovery of Rs. 45,50,000, alleging mutual termination of the agreement, with construction to be completed by sub-contractors under the supervision of Appellant No. 2.
  • The Respondent filed I.A. No. 12124 of 2012 under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking a stay of the suit. The Single Judge found the suit defective for misjoinder, granting the Appellants the option to proceed with either the recovery claim or the declarations and injunction claim.
  • The Appellant’s appeal (FAO (OS) No. 470 of 2012) which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court on 28.09.2012, prompting the Appellants to file the present special leave appeal before this court

Main Issue:

  1. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties as well as for causes of action? (Paragraph 4)
  2. Is the High Court justified in deciding the maintainability of the suit when an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996, pending adjudication before the Arbitral Tribunal? (Paragraph 23)