DIGJAM LIMITED Vs. DLF UNIVERSAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions are filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking to impugn the Award of the learned Arbitrator dated 07.04.2017. OMP (COMM) 286/2017 is filed by Digjam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) whereas OMP (COMM.) 289/2017 is filed by DLF Universal Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the respondent).

(2.) Some of the brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petitions as stated in the Award are that in 1994, the respondent commenced a project for putting up an office complex. The claimant applied for allotment of office space. On 30.07.1994, the claimant paid Rs. 81,70,752 as part payment. Another sum of Rs. 40,85,376/- was paid on 30.11.1994. On 15.04.1995, the parties entered into an agreement. In terms of the agreement, the time for delivery of possession was 3-1/2 years from 15.04.1995. However, Clause 15 of the agreement provided that whenever the block is ready, an intimation can be given to the claimant for rescheduling the payments. It is further stated that on 01.01996, the respondent is said to have informed the claimant that the construction of the corporate park was at an advanced stage and that the respondent was one year ahead of schedule and expected to apply for completion in March/April, 1996. On 104.1996 in view of early completion of the project, the respondent is said to have written to the claimant regarding pre-ponement of the handing over schedule and forwarded a fresh schedule for payments to the claimant. The claimant made part payments. The claimant on 13.06.1996 paid Rs. 40,85,376/-, on 14.06.1996 paid Rs. 76,66,384/- and on 19.11996 paid Rs. 76,66,384/-. On 09.04.1997, the respondent is again said to have written to the claimant pointing out that a balance of Rs. 1,59,76,809/- remains unpaid. It was also pointed out in the said letter that the respondent is in a position to register the property in favour of the claimant and hence, sought the above amount which included the stamp duty charges and registration charges. On 21.04.1997, the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana granted occupation certificate to the building in question. On 05.07.1997, the respondent called upon the claimant to pay the maintenance charges in terms of the agreement between the parties. Several reminders in this regard are said to have been sent. It is the case of the respondent that despite several reminders, the claimant failed to pay the full amount. Hence, the respondent has vide communication dated 23.07.1999 informed the claimant that on account of breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement by the claimant, the agreement stood automatically cancelled and the earnest money stands forfeited.

(3.) It is in the afore-noted facts and circumstances, that the claimant sought invocation of the arbitration clause. In the claim petition, the claimant sought direction to the respondent to transfer the property in question and also sought compensation for delay in handing over possession of the property. An alternate prayer was also made for an Award for refund of the principal amount of Rs. 5,73,64,833/- paid by the claimant as consideration for purchase of the office block. Rs. 2.70 crores were also sought as damages. The claimant had filed its claim petition on 17.05.200 The respondent also filed its counter claim. The proceedings continued for a period nearly 15 years.