SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Vibhu Bakhru, J.
Shailendra Paul - Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Aggarwal - Respondent
O.M.P. 3 of 2020
Decided On : 18-05-2022




A party's claim to receive contractual consideration remains valid despite non-execution of a sale deed; limitation periods should not bar claims that arise from the contract unless unambiguously established.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Dispute arising from Collaboration Agreement - Petition challenging arbitral award dated 31.12.2019 - Petitioner claimed unpaid balance and damages for incomplete work - Arbitral Tribunal rejected claims on merit and barred by limitation - Findings regarding possession and genuineness of Agreement to Sell deemed erroneous. (Paras 1 to 88)

(B) Contract Law - The principle of contractual obligation and considerations applicable - Petitioner entitled to enforce claims upon proof of contract and absence of execution of sale deed continues obligation to pay consideration. (Paras 70 and 74)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner entered into a Collaboration Agreement with the respondent for construction and sale of property. Disputes arose surrounding payments and property possession, which led to arbitration. Respondent contended that petitioner abandoned the property, while petitioner argued that construction was incomplete.

Findings of Court:
The arbitral award rejected the majority of petitioner's claims, concluding claims were barred by limitation and possession handed over before alleged claims were made. Key errors include misapplication of evidentiary burden and erroneous conclusions regarding possession timelines.

Issues: The case primarily addressed whether the petitioner's claims were timely and valid, focusing on possession of property and validity of the Agreement to Sell.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the arbitral tribunal's findings on possession and limitation were flawed; the genuineness of the Agreement to Sell was not established accurately, necessitating a reassessment of claims.

Result: Petition allowed in part; arbitral award set aside as it pertained to key claims.

Table of Content
1. introduction of petition under arbitration and conciliation act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. details of collaboration agreement and payments. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. disputes leading to arbitration arising from incomplete construction. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. actions and directions of the court preceding arbitration. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. petitioner's arguments against the arbitral tribunal's conclusions. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
6. clarification on limitation period and objections. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
7. court's analysis of claims and arguments. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
8. court's stance on findings regarding the ats. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
9. evaluation of possession issues. (Para 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
10. contrast of parties' claims for possession. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
11. final findings on claims and rationale for rulings. (Para 67 , 68)
12. conclusion and outcome of the petition. (Para 87 , 88 , 89)

JUDGMENT

Vibhu Bakhru, J. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter `the A&C Act') impugning an arbitral award dated 31.12.2019 (hereinafter `the impugned award') rendered by an Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator (hereinafter `the Arbitral Tribunal').

2. The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that have arisen between the parties in relation with the Collaboration Agreement dated 24.10.2010 (hereinafter `the Collaboration Agreement').

Factual Context

On 13.01.2006, the petitioner purchased the property bearing number F-20, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi-110017. Thereafter, on 24.10.2010, the petitioner and the respondent entered into the Collaboration Agreement, wherein the parties had agreed to demolish the existing structure and reconstruct the building with a basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and terrace (hereafter `the Entire Property') in terms of the quality standards as detailed out in Annexure A of the Collaboration Agreement. Further, the respondent agreed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.1,90,00,000 against the rights of the second floor of the Entire Property (hereinafter `the Second Floor'). The relevant Clauses of the Collaboration Agreement are set out below:

"That in addition to the Builder incurring the entire costs and expenses, etc. the Builder has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,90,00,000 (Rupees one crore ninety lacs only) to the Owner as the consideration, in the manner detailed in this Agreement, against the rights, in the portion of the property to be transferred in favour of the Builder or its nominee/s on the completion or during the course of construction of the building.

This consideration shall be payable to the Owner at the time the Builder enters into any Agreement to sell the Builder's Allocation to any person(s). Out of the payments so received at this time, the Owner shall receive a sum equivalent to the percentage this consideration bears to the sale consideration of the Builder's Allocation. The balance consideration shall also be received and shared between the Owner and Builder in the same manner.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

That the Builder shall handover the vacant and physical possession of the Owners' allocation at first and only thereafter the builder shall deliver the vacant and physical possession of the Portion falling on its share to the prospective buyer(s) of the Builder's portion.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

That the Builder undertake to complete the proposed building to the satisfaction of the Owner by 31st March 2012 extendable by a grace period of one month, subject to FORCE MAJEURE and further if delay is occasioned for any reason of any act or legislation or restriction, prohibition or restrained imposed by any Statutory Body and or Governmental Authority, no liability shall attach to the Builder.

That in case the Builder fails to complete the construction of the proposed building within the above




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top