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
| 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
AI
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 est....
The court held that the Arbitral Tribunal erred in its finding that the version of the ATS (Agreement to Sell dated 14.11.2011) as relied upon by the petitioner was fabricated, and also erred in its ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal must be based on evidence and material on record, and the Court will not interfere with the award unless....
The Court emphasized the restrictive scope of jurisdiction at the referral stage under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and highlighted the need to weed out manifestly non-ex....
The arbitral tribunal's decision to deny claims for damages due to lack of supporting evidence is valid under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, emphasizing minimal judicial interfer....
Parties to a collaboration agreement are accountable for adherence to agreed terms; unauthorized deviations may invoke liability for damages arising from resultant legal complications and emotional d....
The court upheld the arbitral award, finding no unreasonable delay or jurisdictional errors, affirming the arbitrator's findings were based on evidence, as claims were not barred by limitation.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited grounds for challenging arbitral awards under Section 34 of the A&C Act, emphasizing the principles of public policy and fundamental In....
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.