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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 2428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
INDIRA BANERJEE, ABDUL QUDDHOSE, JJ.
M/s.Puruvankara Projects Limited, Rep. by its CEO and Ors - Appellants
Versus
Mrs.Ranjani Venkatraman Ganesh - Respondents
O.S.A.No.84 of 2018
Decided on : 26-07-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.R.Sathish Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.N.L.Rajah

Headnote:

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, - Section 34- Section 37- Award - First Appellant is a builder and the remaining Appellants are its employees. The first respondent was one of the purchasers of a residential flat from the first Appellant in the Apartment Complex known as Purva Swanlake at Padur, Kelambakkam Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The first Appellant and the first Respondent entered into a sale agreement and construction agreement both dated 20.02.2014, by which, the first Appellant agreed to sell and construct an Apartment for the first Respondent as per the specifications mentioned therein. There arose disputes between the first Appellant and the first Respondent under the aforesaid agreement. The first Respondent made a claim against the first Appellant - Held, Award relating to delayed delivery of apartment including non-delivery of the car shed, the first Respondent is entitled as per the contract only to a sum of Rs.77,000/- and not Rs.4,21,500/-, which was arbitrarily awarded by the Arbitrator. Excepting for this patent illegality, the Award passed under various other heads namely defective quality and return of club house membership fee, unfair practice on account of providing lesser kilo watt of power supply and cost of arbitration is valid and enforceable and hence cannot be interfered with under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act –Court do not find any patent illegality in the other directions issued by the Arbitrator directing the Appellant to allot to the first Respondent a covered car park within 10 days of the Award and also directing the Appellant to attend to the repair/leakages till an Association is formed as per clause 13 of the Sale Agreement. Both the directions are within the scope of the contract and hence cannot be interfered with by this Court under Section 34 of the Act - Appeal is partly allowed

JUDGEMENT :

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

1. This instant appeal has been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, against the order dated 22.12.2017 passed in O.P.No.143 of 2017 by the learned Single Judge of this Court under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short “the Arbitration Act”).

2. The first Appellant is a builder and the remaining Appellants are its employees. The first respondent was one of the purchasers of a residential flat from the first Appellant in the Apartment Complex known as Purva Swanlake at Padur, Kelambakkam Village, Chengalpet Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The first Appellant and the first Respondent entered into a sale agreement and construction agreement both dated 20.02.2014, by which, the first Appellant agreed to sell and construct an Apartment for the first Respondent as per the specifications mentioned therein. There arose disputes between the first Appellant and the first Respondent under the aforesaid agreement. The first Respondent made a claim against the first Appellant, on account of

(a)Delay in delivery of apartment,

(b)Defective quality of the lift,

(c) Providing insufficient electricity load much less than what was agreed upon under the agreement,

(d) Not providing covered car parking,

(e) Seepage and leakages found in the apartment,

(f) Non-disclosure at the time of initial inspection that the apartment will over look a cemetery.

(g) The club house and other facilities were not provided as per the agreement.

(h) General backup of electricity and balcony enclosure cover not provided.

3. The dispute raised by the first Respondent was referred to Arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration clause contained in the agreement. The second Respondent was appointed as a sole Arbitrator by consent of parties.

4. The first Respondent made the following claim against the Appellants before the Sole Arbitrator which reads as follows:

“a. Interest at the rate of 24% for a sum of Rs.77,00,000/- from December 2014 to 31.10.2015 paid by the Claimant on 21.11.2014 for purchase of the flat which was not complete till October 2015 and there were elevator, water, club house issues and the tower was looking like a construction site only. The sum of which amounts to Rs.16,94,000/-. As per agreement was to be handed over on November 2014 after payment of last due amount which has to be paid at the time of completion and handing over of the flat.

b. Loss of rental income at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per month from February 2015 (date when as per agreement possession was to be handed over after completion) to 31.10.2015 (when finally the construction came to an end) which amounts to a sum of Rs.3,90,000/- and interest on the said amounts at 24% from the date they were due for payment. It may be noted that the flat was finished with furnishing from UK including five air conditioners.

c. Loss of carpets, cabinets, furniture worth Rs.3,60,000/- due to seepage and leakage of water into the flat.

d. Air tickets for a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as the Claimants had to come down suddenly from London after hearing that windows had opened and water was leaking.

e. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental trauma as the Claimants had to climb 14 floors many times due to non functioning of elevators, for poor quality of water, poor club house without proper facilities etc.

f. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for the unfair trade practices adopted by the first respondent by not revealing that the balcony had cemetery view, club house had only four tread mills for seven hundred families, for providing false information that 7 KW power will be provided in their advertisements whereas actually TNEB site showed only 4KW, Spa and Sauna could accommodate only two adults at a time.

g. to indemnify the claimant from any further reoccurrences of water seepages or leakages during the rains for a further period of two years.





















































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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