E.A. No. 265 of 2010 [of Smt. Pimit Kaur u/O-1 R-W(2) for impleadment] 1. This is an application by Smt. Punit Kaur seeking impleadment. She states that she is the owner of the land situated in Village-Kishora and Village-Joshi Chauhan and Kishora, Tehsil and District-Sonepat, Haryana admeasuring approximately 67 Kanals and 4 Maria in Village-Kishora and 11 Kanals and 17Mar]as in Village-Joshi Chauhan, situated at 43.2 KM stone, G.T. Karnal Road, Village-Kishora and Joshi Chauhan, District-Sonepat, Haryana (contiguous land of two villages) which has been attached by order dated 17th May, 2010 of this Court and, therefore, is a necessary and proper party in the proceedings. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, E.A. No. 265 of 2010 is allowed and Smt. Punit Kaur is impleaded as a party to the present proceedings. 3. The application is disposed of. E.A. No. 249 of 2010 (objection by Smt. Punit Kaur) 4. This application by Smt. Punit Kaur is an objection to the enforcement of the Award in Ex. P. No. 104 of 2010 in which an order was passed by this Court on 17th May, 2010 attaching the aforementioned land. She states that an agreement to sell was entered into on 21st June, 1996 in respect of the aforementioned land between her and Shri Dwarka Nath, the owner of the land. Since Shri Dwarka Nath failed to fulfil his obligation thereunder, the applicant and Shri Manpreet Singh filed a suit for specific performance in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat, Haryana which was registered as Civil Suit No. 230 of 1999. 5. Another agreement to sell was entered into on 12th January, 2000 by Shri Dwarka Nath, Shri Brij Mohan, Shri Sohan Lal and Shri Manpreet Singh with Shri Jugal Kishore Arora for sale of their entire land including the aforementioned property. The total area of the land which was subject matter of the above agreement to sell was 157 Kanals of plot of which 50% was owned by Shri Dwarka Nath and remaining by Shri Brij Mohan, Shri Manpreet Singh and others. This includes the plot area for which the agreement to sell was entered into with Smt. Punit Kaur and Shri Manpreet Singh. 6. This includes the plot area for which the agreement to sell was entered into with Smt. Punit Kaur and Shri Manpreet Singh. 6. On 13th July, 2001, during the pendency of suit for specific performance, Shri Dwarka Nath executed a lease deed registered in favour of M/s. Vardaan Agrotech Pvt. Ltd./Judgment Debtor ('JD') No. 1 with respect to his entire land including the land which was subject matter of the agreement to sell in favour of the applicant. 7. On 17th July, 2003, the other purchaser/objector Shri Jugal Kishore also filed suits for specific performance being Civil Suit Nos. 74 and 75 of 2003. During the pendency of these suits, Shri Brij Mohan, Shri Sohan Lal and Shri Manpreet Singh, who were owners of 50% of the land, executed a sale deed in favour of Shri Jugal Kishore and delivered possession of the said portion of the land. 8. On 2nd September, 2003, a further lease deed was executed by Shri Dwarka Nath in favour of JD No.1 in supersession of the earlier lease deed in respect of his land. 9. On 23rd March, 2004, Shri Dwarka Nath gave a declaration and undertaking to the Technology Development Board (TDB') whereby the property in dispute was mortgaged and a part passu charge was created in favour of TDB along with Bank of India. 10. On 24th February, 2006, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sonepat dismissed the suit for specific performance filed by Smt. Punit Kaur and directed Shri Dwarka Nath to pay her a sum of Rs. 19.5 lakh with interest @ 12%. On the same day, Shri Jugal Kishore Arora's suit for specific performance was decreed in his favour and against Shri Dwarka Nath. 11. Smt. Punit Kaur filed an appeal against the said judgment. On 30th October, 2006, the Additional District Judge, Sonepat allowed the appeal of Smt. Punit Kaur and granted a decree for specific performance and directed Shri Dwarka Nath to execute a sale deed in her favour. Shri Dwarka Nath's regular second appeal against the said judgment is stated to be pending in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. However, in the meanwhile Smt. Punit Kaur paid the balance sale consideration in terms of the judgment dated 30th October, 2006 on 22nd October, 2007 and a sale deed was executed in her favour and possession of the land in question was also delivered to her. 12. However, in the meanwhile Smt. Punit Kaur paid the balance sale consideration in terms of the judgment dated 30th October, 2006 on 22nd October, 2007 and a sale deed was executed in her favour and possession of the land in question was also delivered to her. 12. Shri Dwarka Nath's regular second appeal against the judgment of the first appellate Court dated 1st March, 2008 confirming the decree in favour of Shri Jugal Kishore case was dismissed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court on 29th May, 2009. The application of the Bank of India and TDB for impleadment in the regular second appeal was also dismissed. 13. Separate SLPs filed by Shri Dwarka Nath and the TDB and Bank of India were dismissed by the Supreme Court. A clarificatory order dated 15th June, 2009 was passed by the Supreme Court permitting the TDB and Bank of India to institute separate proceedings after impleading the purchaser and to establish their rights, if any, and that their non-impleadment in the second appeal would not come in their way. 14. It was only on 27th July, 2009 that TDB invoked the arbitration clause and referred the disputes arising out of the non-payment of the land amount by the JD No. 1 to the Arbitrator. It was thereafter on 13th November, 2009, the sole Arbitrator passed the Award in favour of TDB which is subject matter of Ex. P. No. 104 of 2010. 15. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. D.K. Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant/objector Smt. Punit Kaur and Mr. Jayant K. Sud, learned Counsel appearing for TDB. The detailed narration of the facts above indicates that Smt. Punit Kaur became the rightful owner of the property in question which is subject matter of attachment long before the initiation of arbitration proceedings by the TDB which lead to the Award in the present proceedings. Clearly, therefore, the JD No. 1 had no right title or interest in the property in question even at the commencement of the arbitral proceedings. Already a sale deed had been executed in favour of the applicant Smt. Punit Kaur and possession also delivered to her. As long as that sale deed was not cancelled it conferred valid title in regard to the lands in question in her favour. Already a sale deed had been executed in favour of the applicant Smt. Punit Kaur and possession also delivered to her. As long as that sale deed was not cancelled it conferred valid title in regard to the lands in question in her favour. While the Supreme Court reserved the right if any of TDB arising from the mortgage of the said property in its favour to be adjudicated in separate proceedings, it did not affect the right and title of the applicant. Consequently, the continuation of the attachment of the property belonging to the applicant/objector cannot be justified in law. 16. Mr. Sud pleaded that the question as to the lifting of the attachment should await the decision of the Company Court in the winding up proceedings concerning JD No. 1. This Court does not find merit in this submission for the reason that the property which was attached by the order dated 17th May, 2010 did not as of that date belong to JD No. 1. As already noticed much prior thereto the right and title of Smt. Punit Kaur stood established with the execution of the sale deed in her favour on 22nd October, 2007. 17. This Court has in its order dated 6th February, 2012 noted the pendency of the winding up proceedings against the JD No. 1. The DH, TDB, will have to take steps before the Company Court to seek leave of that Court to proceed with an execution petition against JD No. 1. 18. In view of the fact that an Official Liquidator has been appointed by the Company Court as regards JD No. 1, the prayer of Mr. Jagjit Singh seeking discharge as its Counsel is allowed. 19. E.A. No. 249 of 2010 filed by Smt. Punit Kaur is allowed. The attachment order passed by this Court on 17th May, 2010 is hereby lifted. The other applications, i.e. E.A. Nos. 373 and 381 of 2010 and E.A. Nos.58 and 384 of 2011, do not survive and are also disposed of. Ex. P. No.W4 of2010 20. The execution petition is closed with permission to the Decree Holder to revive it depending upon the orders of the Company Court in the petition concerning the winding up of JD No. 1.