JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S.Rules r/w Order VII, Rule 1 of C.P.C., pleased to pass a judgment and decree as under:-

(a) Directing the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.4,61,42,148/- by way of Compensation together with interest @ 24% p.m., from the date of this Suit till the date of realization by way of compensation towards the construction cost of the Building and Rental Loss and loss of reputation.

(b) Mandatory Injunction directing the Defendant to issue public notice in all leading daily news papers seeking apology to the plaintiff for causing damage to the reputation of the Plaintiff’s Company by instituting false case.

(c) To Award cost of the plaintiff in this suit.

(d) pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thereby render justice.

1. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff seeking for the relief of monetary compensation, directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.4,61,42,148/- together with future interest at the rate of 24% from the date of filing the suit till the date of realization under the heads:

(a) loss in construction cost

(b) rental loss, and;

(c) compensation for defaming the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has also sought for other consequential reliefs.

2. The defendant has also made a counter claim for directing the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.36,57,852/- along with interest at the rate of 15 % per annum from the date of termination of the agreement, towards refund of the security deposit paid by the defendant.

Brief facts of the case:

3. Case of the plaintiff:

3.1. The plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff is the owner of a property measuring an extent of 31032 Sq.ft., abutting GST Road, bearing Door No.1/10, GST Road, Zamin Pallavaram Village.

3.2. The plaintiff states that the defendant, through a Letter of Intent dated 29.04.2010, approached the plaintiff to construct a commercial building for their exclusive usage, measuring an extent of 35000 Sq.ft. (approx.), and with a further offer of taking the constructed portion on lease for a minimum period of 11 years with a lock in period for the first 3 years. The plaintiff accepted the offer and designed the building exclusively for the use of the defendant according to the need and design given by the defendant.

3.3. The plaintiff states that they entered into an agreement for lease with the defendant on 25.09.2010, as per the terms and conditions approved by the defendant. As per the agreement, the plaintiff had to deliver the physical possession to the defendant on or before 31.03.2011 to enable the defendant to carry out the fit out works. The agreement also provided for termination if there is a delay in the handing over of the property. Alternatively, the agreement also provided for extension of the period at the discretion of the defendant. The agreement stipulated payment of refundable security deposit by the defendant to the tune of Rs.1,46,31,408/- in five instalments at various stages.

3.4. The plaintiff states that the defendant paid a sum of Rs. 2 Lakhs at the time of signing of the agreement and a further sum of Rs.34,57,852/- on 12.11.2010. Thus it is an admitted case of the plaintiff that out of the total security deposit that was fixed under the agreement, the defendant had paid a sum of Rs.36,57,852/-.

3.5. The further case of the plaintiff is that the agreement explicitly contemplated obtaining a planning approval only for a commercial building. According to the plaintiff, the commercial approval is sufficient to put up a hyper market/department stores. Accordingly, the plaintiff obtained the planning approval from CMDA for commercial office building and informed the same to the defendant. The defendant sought for a clarification through their email dated 28.04.2011 as to whether they will be able to operate a hyper market in a building for which the approval has been accorded for commercial office bu