Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

63. It is first necessary to examine the contractual framework governing the parties. The Development Agreements clearly allocate rights and obligations. Developer was granted development rights in respect of a specific portion of the larger property admeasuring 31,323 square metres out of the Owner's total landholding of 151,328 square metres. The FSI/TDR available to Developer for construction was expressly fixed and capped at 59,157 square metres. This is clearly recorded in Clause 3 of the Development Agreement and in the recitals of the subsequent agreements.

902-asao-14-2024+doc

71. Read as a whole, these documents establish a clear factual position: the Owner granted limited development rights to Developer; Developer was entitled to use only 59,157 square metres of FSI/TDR for constructing buildings on a part of the suit land; Developer acted in its own right and not as agent of the Owner; the balance FSI/TDR was expressly reserved to the Owner; and the flat purchasers were aware of and accepted this arrangement at the time of purchase.

902-asao-14-2024+doc

105. What the Owner now proposes is independent development by using the balance FSI/TDR always reserved to it. This is not an addition or alteration to Developer's project. It was never part of the plan disclosed by Developer to the purchasers.

106. The Society's interpretation would lead to untenable consequences. It would mean that once a landowner permits one phase of development on a part of its land, it is forever barred from undertaking any future development on the adjoining land, even using FSI/TDR that was never granted to the developer and always remained reserved to the owner. Section 7 cannot be read so broadly.

116. Yet the Society has consciously chosen not to seek any declaration. There is no prayer that the clauses reserving balance FSI/TDR to the Owner are invalid. There is no prayer that the Society is entitled to such FSI/TDR. There is no prayer that the Owner is a promoter. There is no prayer that the Owner must convey such rights to the Society. The suit only seeks injunctions restraining the Owner from using the FSI/TDR or developing the land.

117. This omission is plainly deliberate. If declaratory relief had been sought, the Society would have had to directly confront the express contractual terms, the purchasers' acknowledgments, and the authorities binding this Court. By filing only a suit for injunction, the Society seeks to avoid adjudication of the core issue while securing interim orders to stall the Owner's development.