Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ., SUMAN SHYAM
Sunteck Realty Limited – Appellant
Versus
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. lease awarded and executed with 4-year construction timeline. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. undisclosed pre-existing piles caused foundational delays. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. fsi increase led to additional built-up area allotments. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. construction progressed; premium paid under protest. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. impugned notice demands penalty; refund sought. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. writ barred by delay, remedy, and lease terms. (Para 30 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 7. supplementary deed dispenses time limit; prior judgment applies. (Para 32 , 34 , 35) |
| 8. writ maintainable; public law element overrides contract disputes. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 9. lease clauses unfair on approval delays. (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 10. lessor duty to disclose material defects. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 11. cannot benefit from own wrong or prevention. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72) |
| 12. penalty levied arbitrarily without notice. (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81) |
| 13. supplementary deed removes time limit; contra proferentem. (Para 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 8 |
Lease penalty for construction delay invalid where lessor nondiscloses material site defects, supplementary deed removes time limit for additional built-up area, delays due to approvals/statutory fac....
Supplementary lease deeming additional built-up area integral with no time limit overrides original four-year completion clause for composite construction; penalty demands arbitrary, illegal; payment....
Penalty for construction delay under lease quashed due to delays from court stay, statutory approvals, additional area; writ maintainable for arbitrary state action; 6-year extension non-discriminato....
Additional premium demand for construction delay under lease held arbitrary where caused by statutory approvals, late commencement certificates, and extra built-up area without timeline; applicable s....
Imposing penal charges for contract breaches is valid when stipulated policies and terms align with contractual obligations, and acceptance of penalties post-acceptance negates protest claims.
The court ruled that the lack of adherence to procedural fairness in demanding additional lease premium necessitated reconsideration, balancing the interests of both parties.
The court emphasized that administrative discretion must be exercised fairly, considering both parties' interests, especially when external factors impede contractual obligations.
The court's decision emphasized the importance of adhering to the terms of the contract and the limited scope of examination under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1966.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
