Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

M/S Jagmohan Enterprises Llp vs M/S Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd on 31 July, 2025

       IN THE COURT OF SH. ANIL KUMAR SISODIA
       DISTRICT JUDGE (COMMERCIAL COURT)-04,
                 CENTRAL DIST. DELHI

OMP (I) (COMM) 489/2025

M/s Jagmohan Enterprises LLP
Director Jagmohan Ahluwalia
Off. At 2205, A/169,
Ganesh Pura,
Tri Nagar, Delhi-110035     ........Petitioner

Vs.

1. M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Registered office 32-B, Pusa Road,
New Delhi-110005

Branch Office at:
Unit # G 02 & 03
Neo Saquare, Sector-109,
Palam Vihar,
Gurugram-122017                              .... Respondent

                                   ORDER

1. This order shall dispose of an application u/s 9 of Arbitration and conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "A&C Act") filed by the petitioner seeking interim injunction for restraining the respondent, their agents etc from leasing out or creating third party interest in respect of the unit i.e. commercial unit priority (restaurant) no. 22 of the Neo Square, Project developed by the respondent and further to restrain the respondent from canceling the unit / MOU till the disposal of the ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.07.31 SISODIA 16:25:30 +0530 OMP (I) (COMM) 489/2025 M/s Jagmohan Enterprises LLP Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.

present case.

2. Notice of the petition was duly served on the respondent.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner had invested in commercial unit priority (restaurant) no. 22 of the Neo Square situated at Sector 109, Palam Vihar, Gurugram. The petitioner made a total payment of Rs. 24,76,460/- towards basic sale price and additional charges of Rs. 2,76,342/- and VAT payment of Rs. 4,96,088/-. The petitioner and respondent entered into builder buyer agreement and MOU (for leasing of the property to the respondent) dated 17.04.2013. As per the terms and conditions of MOU, the construction was to be completed within a period of 36 months from the date of MOU and respondent was to pay assured return to the petitioner @ Rs.49,555/- per month from the date of signing of MOU till the date of handing over of possession. The petitioner consented to lease the allotted property through the respondent and gave rights to the respondent to select the lessee.

4. It is further the case of the petitioner that respondent failed to abide by their commitments and stopped the monthly returns and also failed to complete the construction. The respondent also demanded additional charges illegally. The petitioner filed complaint with EOW, Delhi which led to registration of FIR no. 0046/2022 u/s 406/420/120-B of IPC against the respondent. The ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.07.31 SISODIA 16:25:46 +0530 OMP (I) (COMM) 489/2025 M/s Jagmohan Enterprises LLP Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.

petitioner also filed a complaint before the Haryana Real Estate Regularities Authority vide complaint no. CR /402/2023 titled as Jagmohan Enterprises LLP Vs Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd seeking the following reliefs against the respondent:-

"(i) Set aside the illegal demand of VAT made by the respondent vide letter dated 22.01.2020 and 30.10.2020;

(ii)Direct the respondent to pay assured returns of Rs.

49,555/- from July, 2019 till handing over the possession /leasing out the property;

(iii)Direct the respondent to execute the sale deed after the completion of project in favour of the petitioner"

(iv) Direct the respondent to set aside the illegal demand made vide letter dated 07.06.2021;

(v) Restrain the respondent from entering the leas deed with third party till the completion of project and handing over the possession to the complainant.

5. The Haryana RERA Authority vide its order dated 14.08.2024 disposed of the complaint and passed the following directions:-

(i) The cancellation dated 07.06.2021 was set aside and respondent was directed to pay arrears of amount of assured return @ Rs. 49,555/- per month from 17.03.2013 till the commencement of first lease of the unit after obtaining occupation certificate as per MOU;

(ii) Directed the respondent to pay the arrears of accrued assured return as per MOU dated 17.03.2013 within 90 days failing which amount would be payable with interest @ 9% per annum till the date of actual realization;

                                                ANIL    by ANIL KUMAR
                                                        SISODIA
                                                KUMAR Date:
                                                SISODIA 2025.07.31
                                                        16:26:58 +0530

OMP (I) (COMM) 489/2025 M/s Jagmohan Enterprises LLP Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.

(iii) Directed the respondent to offer possession of the unit within two months from the date of obtaining occupation certificate from the concerned authority and to execute conveyance deed within three months after obtaining occupation certificate;

(iv) The demand letter dated 22.01.2020 and 30.10.2020 demanding dues on account of VAT were set aside;

(v)The respondent was directed not to charge anything from the petitioner which was not part of the agreement of sale.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present petition has been filed as respondent has failed to comply with the order passed by Haryana RERA on 14.08.2024 and the respondent has further threatened to lease out the unit to the third party without the consent of the petitioner and without disclosing the details of the lease and the name of lessee. It has been argued that the respondent wants to create a third party interest in the unit allotted to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi titled as "Priyanka Taksh Sood & Ors. Vs Sunworld Residency Pvt. Ltd & Anr., 2022 SCC Online Delhi 4717 to argue that the petitioner is well within its right to approach this court for the remedies and there is no bar under RERA Act from the application of concurrent remedy under A&C Act and there is no clash between the provision of RERA Act and A&C Act as the remedies available under the former are in addition to, and not in suppression of, the remedies available under the A&C Act.

                                           ANIL    by ANIL KUMAR
                                                   SISODIA
                                           KUMAR Date:
                                           SISODIA 2025.07.31
                                                   16:27:10 +0530

OMP (I) (COMM) 489/2025 M/s Jagmohan Enterprises LLP Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.

It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner has a strong prima facie case in its favour as the action of the respondent have caused significant harm to the petitioner and the intention of the respondent to lease the petitioner's unit to the third party would cause irreparable harm and injury to the petitioner and the respondent is trying to impose arbitrary and extraneous conditions not contemplated in the MOU by raising unlawful demands. It was argued that the balance of conveyance also lies in favour of the petitioner as it has made significant investments and has right to enjoy its unit.

7. Per Contra, counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the petition and has argued that once the petitioner has availed their remedies before Haryana RERA, it cannot file the present petition under A&C Act. It was argued by the counsel for the respondent that even before Haryana RERA the petitioner had claimed a similar relief to restrain the respondent from entering the lease deed with third party till the completion of project and handing over the possession and the said relief has been denied by the Haryana RERA. The petitioner now cannot claim the same relief before this forum. Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the order passed by the court of Ld. District Judge (Commercial)-11, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi dated 10.07.2025 wherein similar petition seeking similar relief by the petitioner has been declined. It was also argued that once the petitioner has voluntarily chosen one forum and has failed to get ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.07.31 SISODIA 16:27:22 +0530 OMP (I) (COMM) 489/2025 M/s Jagmohan Enterprises LLP Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.

a relief, it cannot approach another forum for a similar relief.

8. In rebuttal, counsel for the petitioner has argued that the present petition has been filed under changed circumstances. It was argued that when the petitioner approached Haryana RERA, the project was incomplete whereas now the project has been completed and respondent obtained occupation certificate in October, 2024. Hence, the present petition is based on different cause of action.

9. After hearing both the counsels and after carefully going through the record, this court is of the considered opinion that the reliefs sought by the petitioner cannot be granted to it for the reasons that petitioner had voluntarily and of its own free will entered into MOU with the respondent wherein it had agreed/authorized the respondent to lease out the unit allotted to it and further to finalize the terms of the lease with any prospective lessee which the respondent may choose and the petitioner was under obligation to sign the lease deed finalized by the respondent company. It is not the case of the petitioner that it was ignorant of the terms and conditions of the MOU or that MOU was signed under some misrepresentation or coercion.

10. Secondly, the petition is also not maintainable as the petitioner had already availed its remedy before Haryana RERA seeking similar relief before the said forum where its grievances ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.07.31 SISODIA 16:28:42 +0530 OMP (I) (COMM) 489/2025 M/s Jagmohan Enterprises LLP Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.

were heard and adjudicated vide order dated 14.08.2024. The "Doctrine of Election of Remedy" is applicable when there are two or more co-existence remedies available to the litigants at the time of election. The "Doctrine of Election" clearly suggests that when two remedies are available for the same relief, the party has the option to elect either of them and once the aggrieved party chooses to exercise one, he looses the right to simultaneously exercise the other for the same cause of action. The submission of counsel for the petitioner that the reliefs sought in the present petition is different from the reliefs sought before Haryana RERA as the project was not complete at that time. However, mere issuance of occupation certificate in October, 2024 to the respondent does not change the aforesaid position. Once the petitioner has exercised their right to choose a forum for adjudicating their grievances, it cannot invoke the jurisdiction of another forum to agitate the similar /identical relief.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act is accordingly disposed of as dismissed.

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

                                                          Digitally signed by
                                     ANIL KUMAR ANIL KUMAR SISODIA
                                     SISODIA    Date: 2025.07.31
                                                16:28:57 +0530

                                   (ANIL KUMAR SISODIA)
                            District Judge (Commercial Court)-04
                                      Central/Delhi
Announced in open
court on 31st July, 2025

OMP (I) (COMM) 489/2025 M/s Jagmohan Enterprises LLP Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.