M/S Gpm Developers Pvt. Ltd vs Dharmender Chaudhary And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 7745 P&H

LPA-421-2022                                                             1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
126
                                                 LPA-421-2022

                                               Date of Decision: July 26, 2022

M/S GPM DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT

                                    Versus

DHARMENDER CHAUDHARY AND ANOTHER
                                                             ...RESPONDENTS


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL


Present:    Mr. Jeetender Gupta, Advocate,
            for the appellant.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

In this Intra Court appeal, challenge is to the order dated

19.04.2022 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Single Judge vide which

writ petition preferred by the appellant (petitioner therein) challenging the

Award dated 04.12.2018 passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public

Utility Services, Faridabad allowing the petition filed under Section 22 (C)

(1) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 preferred by respondent No.

1 directing refund of the amount of `6,91,973/- deposited by the said

respondent along with interest @9% per annum from the due date of

depositing till realization of the amount, stands dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned

Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the Permanent Lok Adalat could

not decide the case on merits. He submits that the Permanent Lok Adalat

once finds that the compromise or settlement has not been entered into

between the parties, it should have relegated the parties to the remedy of

1 of 4

arbitration as provided for in the contract agreement especially Clause 44.

Since there is an arbitration clause, the Permanent Lok Adalat could not

have proceeded to pass the impugned Award.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has also argued the case on

merits to contend that the Award dated 04.12.2018 (Annexure P-8) passed

by the Permanent Lok Adalat is not sustainable in the light of the fact that

respondent No. 1 had failed to deposit the instalments which he was

supposed to pay at fixed intervals as per the agreement entered into between

the parties. Because of non-deposit of the amount, the amount so deposited

by respondent No. 1 i.e. `6,91,973/- stood forfeited and he was not entitled

to refund of the said amount, what to say of interest. It has also been

asserted that when the possession has been offered by the appellant, the

requirement was that respondent No. 1 should have paid the remaining

amount along with interest thereon to the appellant and taken possession

thereof. Prayer has, thus, been made for allowing the present appeal by

setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the

Award of the Permanent Lok Adalat.

Having considered the submissions made by the counsel for the

appellant and on going through the pleadings, the impugned Award passed

by the Permanent Lok Adalat as also the judgment passed by the learned

Single Judge, we are of the considered view that the present appeal has no

merit and deserves dismissal.

The basic question, which has been raised and dealt with by the

Permanent Lok Adalat, is that the appellant was claiming shelter of the

terms and conditions of the builder buyer agreement, which had been

entered into between the parties. The said agreement having not been

2 of 4

placed on record, there was no occasion for the Permanent Lok Adalat to

take the said terms and conditions into consideration. Mere statement on

the part of the appellant would not be enough when the same had been

controverted by respondent No. 1.

It is also not in dispute that the offer of

possession, which has been made to respondent No. 1, is in November,

2017. Petition under Section 22 (C) (1) of the Legal Services Authorities

Act, 1987 had been preferred by respondent No. 1 on 31.07.2015 when the

appellant had failed to complete the construction within the stipulated time.

The prayer of the respondents, therefore, for refund of the amount deposited

along with interest had been made. Nothing has come on record which

would indicate that any steps were ever taken by the appellant for

cancellation of the booking and allotment made in favour of the respondents

on account of failure to make further payments for a long period of time i.e.

from 26.09.2013 till November, 2017.

Further more, counsel for the appellant could not dispute the

fact that as of now, neither completion certificate nor the occupancy

certificate have been issued by the Town and Country Planning Department.

In the absence of these two certificates and approvals by the competent

authority, even if possession is offered by the appellant, the same cannot be

used by the respondents. In any case, the deposit of the amount by the

appellant, the utilization of the said amount and the claim for refund having

been made much prior to the offer of possession and that too, in the absence

of the completion and occupancy certificates from the competent authority

entitles respondent No. 1 for the refund of the amount deposited by him

along with interest.

3 of 4

As regards the plea of the counsel for the appellant that the

Permanent Lok Adalat did not have the jurisdiction to decide the case on

merits, suffice it to say that none of the parties had put forth the said

objection at any stage but had proceeded to put forth their respective stands

on merits not only in the pleadings but also at the time of hearing of the

counsel before the Permanent Lok Adalat.

As regards the plea of arbitration clause available in the

contract, suffice it to say that the said plea was also not pleaded or pressed

into service before the Permanent Lok Adalat. Even, as has been stated

above, the buyer builder agreement, which defined the terms and conditions

of the agreement between the parties, having not been placed on record, the

said plea cannot be accepted as in the absence of the said agreement, it

cannot be asserted as to whether there was such a clause of arbitration or

not.

In view of the above, finding no merit in the present appeal, the

same stands dismissed.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE

(SANDEEP MOUDGIL) JUDGE July 26, 2022 pj

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

4 of 4