LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-519

INNOVATIVE REALTORS PVT LTD Vs. SUSHMA SACHDEVA

Decided On October 19, 2015
Innovative Realtors Pvt Ltd Appellant
V/S
Sushma Sachdeva Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA 22311/2015

(2.) Vide agreement to sell dated 25th October, 2013, the petitioner agreed to purchase plot bearing no.231, Part-III measuring 155.55 sq. yds. situated at Gujrawala Town from the respondent for a total consideration of Rs.6 crores. The petitioner paid Rs.60 lakhs at the time of the agreement and agreed to pay Rs.1,40,00,000/- within 15 days, Rs.1,00,00,000/- within 30 days and balance Rs. 3,00,00,000/- at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed. Admittedly, the petitioner did not pay Rs.1,40,00,000/- payable within 15 days and Rs.1,00,00,000/- within a period of 30 days of the agreement. The petitioner did not even contact the respondent during the above period. The first communication between the parties is dated 10th December, 2013 i.e. after 45 days of the agreement in which the petitioner raised a frivolous issue of NOC to be obtained by the respondent though the agreement specifically provided that the NOC for execution of the Sale Deed shall be required to be obtained at the time of the execution of the Sale Deed. The respondent in her reply dated 16th December, 2013 categorically denied that any NOC was required as the property was a freehold property and that the entire chain of documents have already been shown to the petitioner which could be again produced at any point of time. The respondent granted further time of seven days to make the payment failing which the earnest money of Rs. 60,00,000/- shall be forfeited. The petitioner did not lead any evidence before the learned arbitrator to prove the availability of the funds with him for completion of the sale.

(3.) The learned arbitrator held that the petitioner committed default in payment of Rs.1,40,00,000/- within 15 days and Rs.1,00,00,000/- within a period of 30 days of the agreement to sell. The learned arbitrator further held that the petitioner's conduct in not making further payments in terms of the agreement goes to show that the petitioner was not ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. The arbitrator further held that the termination of the agreement due to non-payment of the balance amount was not illegal or fraudulent as the very first clause of the agreement provides for cancellation if the purchaser does not adhere to the schedule of payment. The relevant portion of clause 1 of the agreement has been reproduced as under: