IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Omaxe Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Balvinder Kaur Nijjar – Respondent
O.M.P. (COMM) 295 of 2021 & I.A. 12845 of 2021 & I.A. 12846 of 2021 & I.A. 14857 of 2021
Decided On : 19-07-2023
[KEYWORD] - [SUBJECT] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [SUMMARY]
Fact of the Case:
The instant Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter `The Act, 1996') being aggrieved of the Award dated 20th March 2020 seeking the following reliefs: "a. Pass an order summoning the entire original arbitral record from the Learned Sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings arising out of Arbitration Petition No.20/2015 titled Jaswinder Singh & Anor. Vs. Omaxe Ltd.; b. Pass an order thereby setting aside the impugned Award dated 20.03.2020 passed in arbitration proceedings arising out of Arbitration Petition No.20/2015 titled Jaswinder Singh & Anor. Vs. Omaxe Ltd.; c. Pass an order thereby allowing the Counter Claims made by the Petitioner in arbitration proceedings arising out of A Arbitration Petition No.20/2015 titled Jaswinder Singh & Anor. Vs. Omaxe Ltd.; d. Stay the operation and execution of the impugned Award dated 20.03.2020 passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator during the pendency of the present proceedings. e. Pass any other or further order(s) deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
Finding of the Court:
The Court is of the view that the Learned Sole Arbitrator was well within his jurisdiction and capacity to award the claim/compensation in favour of the respondent.
Issues: Whether the impugned Award dated 20th March 2020 is liable to be set aside under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court is of the view that the Learned Sole Arbitrator was well within his jurisdiction and capacity to award the claim/compensation in favour of the respondent. The Award is well-reasoned and is not in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian law, and thus there is no reason for interference in the impugned Award. In view of the above discussion of facts and law, this Court finds no reason to set aside the impugned Arbitral Award dated 20th March 2020.
Final Decision: The petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with pending applications, if any.
JUDGMENT
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter `The Act, 1996') being aggrieved of the Award dated 20th March 2020 seeking the following reliefs:
"a. Pass an order summoning the entire original arbitral record from the Learned Sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings arising out of Arbitration Petition No.20/2015 titled Jaswinder Singh & Anor. Vs. Omaxe Ltd.;
b. Pass an order thereby setting aside the impugned award dated 20.03.2020 passed in arbitration proceedings arising out of Arbitration Petition No.20/2015 titled Jaswinder Singh & Anor. Vs. Omaxe Ltd.;
c. Pass an order thereby allowing the Counter Claims made by the Petitioner in arbitration proceedings arising out of A Arbitration Petition No.20/2015 titled Jaswinder Singh & Anor. Vs. Omaxe Ltd.;
d. Stay the operation and execution of the impugned Award dated 20.03.2020 passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator during the pendency of the present proceedings.
e. Pass an order allowing costs of the present proceedings in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents;
f. Pass any other or further order(s) deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice."
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The petitioner was a Real-Estate Development Company incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956 and subsequently under the Companies Act, 2013. It works in the construction and development of commercial, residential and integrated Real-Estate projects across India.
3. The petitioner undertook the construction and development of a commercial project in the nature of a shopping/commercial mall in the name and style of "Omaxe Novelty Mall" situated at Lawrence Road, Amritsar, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as "Project/said Project") in collaboration with the landowners, namely M/s. Novelty Associates Pvt. Ltd., vide Collaboration Agreement.
4. On 7th April 2005, an MOU was executed at New Delhi between the petitioner and the respondent (owner & Attorney Holder of other Co-owners) for the purpose of development and construction of commercial complex on the land owned by them under the name and style of Omaxe Novelty Mall, Amritsar. As per the terms of the said MOU, built-up area was to be shared by petitioner and respondent in the ratio of 55% and 45%, respectively. The sale proceeds were to be received in a separate escrow account in the name of "Omaxe-Novelty" with standing instructions to the Bank to transfer 90% of the proceeds to the individual account of the parties as per their sharing ratio of the project. The balance amount of 10% was agreed to be transferred to the account of Omaxe for meeting costs and expenses of advertisement, marketing, brokerage, documentation and office expenses.
5. On 23rd May 2005, a Collaboration Agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent for the development of the Commercial Complex/Mall.
6. The landowners had also executed the Power of Attorney dated 23rd May, 2005 in favor of the Petitioner for carrying out the objectives contained in the Collaboration Agreement.
7. The Municipal Corporation, Amritsar vide its letter dated 25th May, 2006, sanctioned the building plan of the project/mall in question with height upto 30 meters pursuant to which the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar, the petitioner started the construction of the Mall and it was in full swing by April, 2007.
8. The respondents had approached the petitioner seeking purchase of commercial real-estate in furtherance to the respondents' intentions; the petitioner offered them an opportunity to purchase a commercial property in the nature of a shop in their upcoming said project.
9. Accordingly, the respondents submitted an application dated 10th February, 2007 with the petitioner for provisional allotment of a Unit in the said project. Subsequently following mutual agreement and deliberations between the respondents and the petitioner, vide allotment letter dated
Banglore Development Authority vs. Syndicate Bank
South East Asia Marine Engg. & Constructions Ltd. (SEAMEC LTD.) v. Oil India Ltd.
NBCC (India) Ltd. v. Shri Ram Trivedi
Clauses in contracts that prohibit claims for damages are against public policy and void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, as they undermine the sanctity of contracts.
The court upheld the Arbitrator's findings that the rescission of the contract was unjust and delays were primarily attributable to the petitioner, affirming the award under Section 34 of the Arbitra....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the imposition of liquidated damages must be in line with the contractual terms, and the interpretation of contractual clauses and the waiver ....
The limited grounds for interference with an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, emphasize the concept of patent illegality and the criteria for setting asi....
(1) Application against arbitral award – Phrase ‘public policy’ does not indicate ‘a catch-all provision’ to challenge awards before an appellate forum on infinite grounds.(2) Whether time is of esse....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.