Sareen v Oberoi - [2024] NZHC 3766

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-2560

[2024] NZHC 3766

UNDER Section 143 of the Land Transfer Act 2017 and Part 19 of the High Court Rules

BETWEEN

DHEERAJ SAREEN

Applicant

AND

JAGPREET SINGH OBEROI

First Respondent

JASRAJ INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Second Respondent

CIV-2024-404-2683

BETWEEN

JASRAJ INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Applicant

AND

165 RUSSELL ROAD LIMITED

Respondent

Hearing: 2 December 2024

Counsel:

R J Connell for Dheeraj Sareen

S Raju for Jagpreet Oberoi and Jasraj Investments Limited G Jindal for 165 Russell Road Limited

Judgment:

11 December 2024

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE BRITTAIN

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 December 2024 at 12 midday.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Solicitors/Counsel:
Connell & Connell, Auckland Aaron Kashyap, Auckland Ormiston Legal, Auckland

…………………..
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

SAREEN v OBEROI [2024] NZHC 3766 [11 December 2024]

Introduction

[1] Dheeraj Sareen (Mr Sareen) and Jagpreet Singh Oberoi (Mr Oberoi) agreed to participate in a joint venture for the development of 165 Russell Road, Manurewa (the property). They incorporated 165 Russell Road Ltd (RRL) as the joint venture vehicle.

[2] The property was acquired by Jasraj Investments Ltd (JIL) as trustee for RRL. JIL is controlled by Mr Oberoi. In October 2020, Mr Sareen lodged a caveat against the title to the property, based on RRL’s interest as a purchaser of the property from JIL under an agreement for sale and purchase (Mr Sareen’s caveat).

[3] The property has not been developed. Mr Sareen and Mr Oberoi fell into a bitter dispute which has resulted in an array of litigation.

[4] In May 2024, RRL lodged its own caveat against the title to the property, on the basis that JIL holds the property on trust for RRL (RRL’s caveat).

[5] On 28 August 2024, JIL put the property up for auction. The property was passed in, and JIL negotiated with the highest bidder and entered into an agreement for sale and purchase (the Versatile contract) to sell the property to Versatile Homes Ltd (Versatile). Settlement is due on 28 February 2025.

[6] JIL commenced the procedure under the Land Transfer Act 2017 (LTA) to lapse Mr Sareen’s caveat. In CIV-2024-404-2560 (2560), Mr Sareen has applied for an order sustaining his caveat. In CIV-2024-404-2683 (2683), JIL seeks an order removing RRL’s caveat. The two caveat proceedings were heard together on 2 December 2024.

[7]The proceedings raise four issues, in broad terms:

(a)Is it reasonably arguable that Mr Sareen has an equitable interest in the property that can sustain his caveat?

(b)Is it reasonably arguable that RRL has an equitable interest in the property that can sustain its caveat?

(c)If the answer to issue (a) or (b) is yes, what is the duration of the equitable interest?

(d)Should the Court exercise its residual discretion to remove the caveat(s) to enable JIL to settle the Versatile contract?

Background

[8] In 2020, Mr Sareen applied to this Court for leave to bring a derivative claim…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sareen v Oberoi

Details

AGLC: Sareen v Oberoi [2024] NZHC 3766
Case: [2024] NZHC 3766
Decision Date: 11 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Sareen v Oberoi involved two related proceedings concerning the property located at 165 Russell Road, Manurewa. Dheeraj Sareen (Mr Sareen) and Jagpreet Singh Oberoi (Mr Oberoi) were joint venturers in 165 Russell Road Ltd (RRL), a company incorporated to develop the property. Jasraj Investments Ltd (JIL) holds the property on trust for RRL, with Mr Oberoi as the controller of JIL. Mr Sareen lodged a caveat against the title to the property, based on RRL's interest as a purchaser from JIL. Subsequently, RRL lodged its own caveat against the title to the property. JIL had put the property up for auction, which was passed in, and subsequently negotiated an agreement for sale and purchase with Versatile Homes Ltd (Versatile) to sell the property. JIL commenced the procedure under the Land Transfer Act 2017 to lapse Mr Sareen’s caveat. In CIV-2024-404-2560 (2560), Mr Sareen applied for an order sustaining his caveat. In CIV-2024-404-2683 (2683), JIL sought an order removing RRL’s caveat. The proceedings raised four issues, in broad terms: (a) whether it was reasonably arguable that Mr Sareen had an equitable interest in the property that could sustain his caveat; (b) whether it was reasonably arguable that RRL had an equitable interest in the property that could sustain its caveat; (c) if so, what was the duration of the equitable interest; and (d) should the Court exercise its residual discretion to remove the caveats to enable JIL to settle the Versatile contract. The Court found that Mr Sareen’s caveat could not be sustained as he had no personal interest in any agreement for sale and purchase between JIL and RRL, and no personal right to sustain a caveat. Additionally, a contractual clause granting the right to caveat in a contract which does not otherwise confer a caveatable interest of any sort cannot sustain a caveat. RRL’s equitable interest in the property only existed until JIL transferred the property to Versatile in exercise of the agreed power of sale. Therefore, RRL’s caveat should lapse to allow that sale to happen. The Court exercised its residual discretion to remove the caveats to enable JIL to settle the Versatile contract, with the conditions that Jagpreet Singh Oberoi deposit $50,000 into the trust account of Aaron Kashyap to be held on trust in the names of Jagpreet Singh Oberoi and Dheeraj Sareen as security for any claim that Dheeraj Sareen has to a share of the net rent received by JIL while registered owner and trustee of the property, and Jasraj Investments Ltd provide an irrevocable authority to Aaron Kashyap to act for it on settlement of the agreement for sale and purchase of 165 Russell Road, Manurewa with Versatile Homes Ltd. Sareen and RRL were unsuccessful with their applications and should pay costs.

Orders