Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Harmeet Singh Kapoor 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) 487/2025

1. Dr. Harmeet Singh Kapoor
 S/o Mr. A.S. Kapoor,
R/o M-452, G.H.K. Nagar,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110087

2. Dr. Satvinder Kapoor,
W/o Mr. Harmeet Singh Kapoor,
R/o M-452, G.H.K. Nagar,
Paschim Vihar,
New Delhi-110087                                         ........Petitioners

Vs.

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 petitioners seeking interim injunction Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:

SISODIA 2025.07.31 16:23:42 +0530 OMP (I) (COMM) 487/2025 Dr. Harmeet Singh Kapoor & Anr. Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.

for restraining the respondent, their agents etc from leasing out or creating third party interest in respect of the unit i.e. commercial shop /unit no. 58 A on ground floor of the Neo Square, Project developed by the respondent and further to restrain the respondent from canceling the aforesaid unit till the commencement of the arbitration.

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

3. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition are that the petitioners had invested in commercial shop/ unit no. 58 A on the ground floor of Neo Square situated at Sector 109, Palam Vihar, Gurugram. The petitioners made a total payment of Rs. 43,53,732/- towards basic sale price and additional charges of Rs. 2,68,094/- and VAT payment of Rs. 2,08,313/-. The petitioners and respondent entered into builder buyer agreement and MOU (for leasing of the property to the respondent) dated 01.11.2016. As per the terms and conditions of the builder buyer agreement, 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 petitioners @ Rs. 64,337/- per month from the date of signing of MOU till the date of handing over of possession. The petitioners consented to lease the allotted property through the respondent and gave rights to the respondent to select the lessee.

                                  ANIL                    KUMAR
                                  KUMAR                   SISODIA
                                                          Date:
                                  SISODIA                 2025.07.31
                                                          16:23:56 +0530

OMP (I) (COMM) 487/2025 Dr. Harmeet Singh Kapoor & Anr. Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.

4. It is further the case of the petitioners 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 petitioners 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 petitioners also filed a complaint before the Haryana Real Estate Regularities Authority vide complaint no. CR /46/2024 titled as Dr. Harmeet Kapoor & Dr. Satvinder Kapoor 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 30.03.2017 and 22.01.2020;

(ii)Direct the respondent to make payment towards assured return;

(iii)Direct the respondent to pay delay possession charges and execute conveyance deed in their favour;

(iv)Restrain the respondent from entering the lease deed with third party till the completion of project and handing over of possession to the complainants"

5. The Haryana RERA Authority vide its order dated 14.05.2025 disposed of the complaint and passed the following directions:-

(i)The demand letters dated 22.01.2020 and 07.06.2021 were set aside;

(ii)The respondent was directed to pay assured return to the petitioners at the agreed rate per month from 01.11.2018 till Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.07.31 SISODIA 16:24:10 +0530 OMP (I) (COMM) 487/2025 Dr. Harmeet Singh Kapoor & Anr. Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.

issuance of notice of possession to the complainants and further directed the respondent to pay the outstanding accrued assured return amount within 90 days from the date of order failing which the amount would be payable with interest @ 9.10% p.a till the date of realization;

(iii) The respondent was directed to hand over the possession of the unit to the petitioners in terms of MOU as well as builder buyer agreement and further to execute the conveyance deed in their favour;

(iv)The respondent was directed not to charge anything from the petitioners which was not part of BBA/MOU dated 01.11.2016.

6. Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the present petition has been filed as respondent has failed to comply with the order passed by Haryana RERA on 14.05.2025 and the respondent has further threatened to lease out the unit to the third party without the consent of the petitioners 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 petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners 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 Digitally signed ANIL by ANIL KUMAR SISODIA KUMAR Date:

SISODIA 2025.07.31 16:24:22 +0530 OMP (I) (COMM) 487/2025 Dr. Harmeet Singh Kapoor & Anr. Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.

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.

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

7. Per Contra, counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the petition and has argued that once the petitioners have availed their remedies before Haryana RERA, they cannot file the present petition under A&C Act. It was argued by the counsel for the respondent that even before Haryana RERA the petitioners 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 petitioners now cannot claim the same relief before this forum. Counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the order passed by the ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.07.31 SISODIA 16:24:34 +0530 OMP (I) (COMM) 487/2025 Dr. Harmeet Singh Kapoor & Anr. Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.

court of Ld. District Judge (Commercial)-11, Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi dated 10.07.2025 wherein similar petition seeking similar relief by the petitioners has been declined. It was also argued that once the petitioners have voluntarily chosen one forum and have failed to get a relief, they cannot approach another forum for a similar relief.

8. In rebuttal, counsel for the petitioners has argued that the present petition has been filed under changed circumstances. It was argued that when the petitioners 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 petitioners cannot be granted to them for the reasons that petitioners had voluntarily and of their own free will entered into MOU with the respondent wherein they had agreed/authorized the respondent to lease out the unit allotted to them and further to finalize the terms of the lease with any prospective lessee which the respondent may choose and the petitioners were under obligation to sign the lease deed finalized by the respondent company. It is not the case of the petitioners that they were ignorant of the terms and conditions of the MOU ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.07.31 SISODIA 16:24:45 +0530 OMP (I) (COMM) 487/2025 Dr. Harmeet Singh Kapoor & Anr. Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.

or that they had signed the MOU under some misrepresentation or coercion.

10. Secondly, the petition is also not maintainable as the petitioners had already availed their remedy before Haryana RERA seeking similar relief before the said forum where their grievances were heard and adjudicated vide order dated 14.05.2025. 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 petitioners 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 petitioners have exercised their right to choose a forum for adjudicating their grievances, they 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 ANIL Digitally signed by ANIL KUMAR KUMAR SISODIA Date: 2025.07.31 SISODIA 16:24:59 +0530 OMP (I) (COMM) 487/2025 Dr. Harmeet Singh Kapoor & Anr. Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.

accordingly disposed of as dismissed.

Interim application, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

File be consigned to record room after due compliance.

                                    ANIL    Digitally signed
                                            by ANIL KUMAR
                                    KUMAR SISODIA
                                            Date: 2025.07.31
                                    SISODIA 16:25:11 +0530
                                   (ANIL KUMAR SISODIA)
                            District Judge (Commercial Court)-04
                                      Central/Delhi
Announced in open
court on 31st July, 2025

OMP (I) (COMM) 487/2025 Dr. Harmeet Singh Kapoor & Anr. Vs M/s Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.