Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING] SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, "A&C Act"] seeking appointment of a Sole Arbitrator for reference of disputes arising between the parties.
THE PARTIES
2. Respondent No. 1 - Sunworld Residency Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter, "Sunworld"] is a Real Estate Developer, which had undertaken construction This is a digitally signed Judgement.

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001768 of the Group Housing Society - 'Sunworld Arista' in Sector 168, Noida, U.P. Petitioner No. 1 - Priyanka Taksh Sood and her late husband Shri Taksh Krishna Dass [hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Allottees"] were joint allottees of Flat No. T-1/1701, 174th Floor, Tower-1, (super built- up area admeasuring approximately 2100 square ft.), Sunworld Arista, Sector 168, Noida, U.P. [hereinafter, "subject flat"]. Shri Taksh Krishna Dass passed away on 20th April, 2021 and is being represented by his legal heirs viz. Petitioner No. 2 (his mother), 3 and 4 (his minor son and daughter respectively). Respondent No. 2 is ICICI Bank Limited which has granted loan to the Allotees under the agreement, referred to hereinafter.

3. The parties entered into the following agreements, all dated 27th July 2015:

(i) 'Flat Buyer Agreement' executed between the Allottees and Sunworld;
(ii) 'Supplementary Agreement' executed between the Allottees and Sunworld;
(iii) 'Tripartite Housing Loan Agreement' between the Allottees, Sunworld and Respondent No. 2.

4. The Petitioners state that all the afore-noted agreements are interlinked, and, when read together, reflect the complete understanding between the parties. It is further stated that in terms of the Tripartite Housing Loan Agreement, ICICI Bank sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,02,72,000/- on 28th August, 2015, payable over 240 months, subject to terms and conditions of the other agreements [hereinafter, "bank loan"].

THE DISPUTE

6. As per Clause 7 of the Supplementary Agreement, the Allottees and Sunworld agreed to a lock-in period of 24 months which prohibited Petitioners from withdrawing/ surrendering/ terminating/ cancelling the Flat Buyer Agreement from the date of disbursement of the bank loan. On 27th April, 2017, the Allottees opted to cancel the allotment by sending an intimation as contemplated under Clause 10 of the Supplementary Agreement and surrendered the subject flat, requesting Sunworld to refund an amount of Rs. 22,84,812/-. Petitioners rely upon Clause 8 of the Supplementary Agreement and contend that in terms thereof, since the Allottees exercised their option to cancel the allotment, the surviving obligations under the Supplementary Agreement fall upon Sunworld. They contend that Sunworld has failed to refund the amounts which are due to the Petitioners under the abovesaid contracts, and has also failed to settle the loan account with ICICI Bank.

(b) Deficiency of Stamp Duty

15. As regards the objection qua deficiency of stamp duty, it must be noted that, first and foremost, the pleadings on this issue are vague and unspecific. Sunworld has failed to make a case as to how the Agreement is not properly stamped. No clause has been shown to allege that payment of stamp duty was the obligation of the allottee. Pertinently, the Flat Buyer Agreement and the Supplementary Agreements were prepared and drafted by Sunworld itself. No document has been produced to show that Sunworld ever called upon the Allottees to pay any stamp duty, and now for the first time it is alleged that the document is deficient in stamp duty. That said, this objection cannot be a ground to reject the petition. In a recent decision of the Supreme Court in InterContinental Hotels Group (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Waterline Hotels Pvt. Ltd.,4 the Court, conscious that the question of stamp duty is pending adjudication before a larger bench, has observed as under: