9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1374X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent was advanced before us that a principle of law was ignored or misapplied by the learned Arbitrator. The entire gamut of the arguments in the appeal was a rehash of the contentions urged before the Arbitrator as also before the learned Single Judge. The thrust of the argument was that the findings returned are wrong. Whether the findings were right or wrong required us to re-appreciate the entire evidence led and reinterpret the contract as if we were to interpret the contract for the first time; a task which we refuse to perform because law prohibits us from doing so. The appeal is dismissed with cost assessed at ₹ 50,000/- to be paid by the appellant to the respondents. - FAO(OS) 191/2014 - - - Dated:- 28-7-2014 - HON' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s handed over. The said clause also enjoyed upon Omaxe to lease the unit to a third party before offering the same. Under clause 2 the liability of Omaxe would cease on offering possession of the two units duly leased. 3. The agreement is typical of advertisement which we see in the newspapers. Builders offering commercial space at assured returns. Small units are offered to investors. The larger space is leased to multi-nationals. Most of the sale price is received by the builders at the time of the agreement. A monthly return till construction is completed is assured. The builder gets the capital without any hassles. The investor gets a good return. But neither is without a security cover other than the appreciation in the value of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Woodland being not supplied to them, there could be no lease; and as a matter of fact additionally took the stand that the property had not been leased to Aero Club Woodland. 7. The contract between the parties had an arbitration clause which was adhered to by the parties. An arbitrator was appointed. 8. Malhotras raised the following claims before the Arbitrator. 1(a) For specific performance of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter dated 20.2.2007 as well as the Addendum dated 20.2.2007 specifically pertaining to execution of conveyance deed and possession in terms of allotment letter and the Addendum. (b) In terms of the allotment letter and Addendum respondent should be directed to pay a sum of ₹ 22,74, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .44 (which includes (i) ₹ 1,91,523.44 towards unpaid basic sale price, (ii) ₹ 1,51,888/- towards interest free maintenance security @ ₹ 100 per sq. ft., (iii) ₹ 2,27,832/- towards additional charges ₹ 150/- per sq. ft. and (iv) ₹ 41,368/- towards meter connection charges of 12 k.w.) along with interest thereon @ 24% per annum from 22.3.2010 till actual payment. 2(a) ₹ 2,43,020.80 towards monthly holding charges from April 2010 till July 2011 along with cumulative interest @ 18% per annum on the monthly holding charges (i.e. ₹ 15188.80) from the end of that month till actual payment. (b) Holding charges @ ₹ 15,188.80 per month from August 2011 rill actu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d accordingly it would be liable to pay a lesser sum than what was agreed after proportionately deducting the less super area which was offered. 14. Perusal of the award would reveal that clauses 4, 26(c), 27(a), 27(b) and 28(a) of the letter of allotment dated February 20, 2007 fell for consideration. 15. The award would show that the learned Arbitrator has considered whether clauses 4, 27(a), 27(b) and 28(a) impact clause 26(c). View taken is that the said 4 clauses would trigger only after an offer of possession was made after clause 26(c). 16. Learned Arbitrator has taken note of various letters relied upon by the appellant but has returned a finding of fact that no possession was offered after the building was complete. 17. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned decision. 21. Concerning award on claim No.1(b)(i) the learned Arbitrator decided the same on the evidence which showed that 5.30 square meters less super area was offered. 22. Award pertaining to claim No.1(b)(ii) and 1(b)(iii) have been noted by the learned Single Judge with reference to clause 26(a) of the letter of allotment as per which the construction had to be completed by July 20, 2009. There was admittedly a delay. 23. Counter claims based on facts and interpretation of the contract have been noted by the learned Single Judge to have been deliberated upon by the arbitrator and rejected. 24. We simply highlight that no argument was advanced before us that a principle of law was ignored or misapplied by the learn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
