Nirmal Agarwal & Ors. vs Clintus Landbase Pvt Ltd.
2014 Latest Caselaw 3292 Del

$~48
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+      O.M.P. 783/2014
%                                         Date of decision: 23rd July, 2014
       NIRMAL AGARWAL & ORS.                           ..... Petitioner
                             Through:     Mr.Md.Niyazuddin, Adv.

                             versus

       CLINTUS LANDBASE PVT LTD.                       ..... Respondent
                    Through:

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

       JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. Vide this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 14.4.2014.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that there was an agreement to sell dated 23.2.2013 between petitioner and the respondent whereby the petitioner had agreed to sell their property bearing no.KC-14, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh with built up area 262.65 square meters to the respondent for a consideration of Rs.9,50,00,000/- (Rs.Nine Crores Fifty lacs only). As per the schedule of payment in the agreement to sell, the respondent paid Rs.2,80,00,000/- to the petitioner as earnest money through RTGS

between 6.2.2013 to 23.2.2013. Remaining amount of Rs.6,70,00,000/- was to be paid by the respondent as per the agreed schedule of payment. Due to some financial problem, the respondent could not make the payment as per the schedule and wrote a letter dated 12.5.2013 with the promise to pay the entire money by 15.8.2013. As per agreement, a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- was to be paid by 30.3.2013, Rs.1,00,00,000/- by 15.4.2013 and remaining Rs.2,70,00,000/- by 15.5.2013. The petitioner agreed to the extension of time for entire payment from 15.5.2013 to 15.8.2013 and issued various letters in this regard.

4. The case of the petitioner is that he waited for the payment by 17th August, 2013 but when no response/payment was received from the respondent, the petitioner terminated the agreement to sell vide letter dated 18th August, 2013 and forfeited the earnest money amounting to Rs.2,80,00,000/-. The respondent thereafter invoked the arbitration clause for recovery of earnest money and the matter was referred to the arbitrator. Vide its order learned arbitrator rejected the claim of the respondent for the recovery of earnest money amounting Rs.2,80,00,000/-. In the arbitration proceedings, the petitioner had also claimed payment of Rs.15,00,000/-( Rupees Fifteen Lacs only) which the respondent had promised to pay as damages for late payment.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned arbitrator has rejected his claim and damages of Rs.15 lacs. It is submitted that the respondent had agreed to make the payment of this amount as damages towards the extension of time for payment. It is argued that

since there was delay in payment and subsequently no payment was made by the respondent, which led to determination of the contract he was entitled for the damages. It is argued that the findings of learned tribunal whereby rejecting his claim, are illegal and against public policy.

6. From the Award of tribunal, it is clear that the learned tribunal has taken into consideration all the aspects of the case and considered all the submissions of parties.The tribunal has given its findings on these contentions as under:

"10. Secondly, as per the respondent, the claimant offered to pay Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent towards damages caused due to delay. No such letters or acceptance of letter is placed on record by the respondent neither any postal receipt nor receiving of any kind in this regard has been placed on record. All the more it is pertinent to mention the said offer of the claimant was clothed in a hidden clause i.e. if the respondents incurred any losses due to the said extension of time. The respondent has not placed any document whatsoever manifesting that due to the said extension they have incurred any losses. Hence, this counter claim does not seem bonafide and hence the counter claim of the respondent also stands rejected."

7. I find no illegality in the findings of the learned Tribunal. The petition has no merit, it is, therefore, dismissed.

DEEPA SHARMA, J JULY 23, 2014 rb