Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

105. Mr. Savant has submitted that the Petitioner's contention that the Respondents were not willing to perform the agreement as the Re- spondents were not agreeable to pay development charges, is false and misconceived. He has submitted that admittedly no demand was made by the Petitioner to the Respondents towards payment of development charges. The development charges contemplated under the agreement were towards external development charges and infrastructure develop-

ARBP(L) 28284.2022 with 9 Ors.doc ment charges which were payable to the State Government or the statu- tory authorities dependent upon such a demand being made by such au- thorities. The development charges were to be paid at the time of pos- session. He has placed reliance upon Clause 2, 5, 10 and 12 of the said agreement in this context. Further, no pleadings was made by the Peti- tioner with respect to the development charges.