Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. These two petitions are filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking to impugn the Award of the learned Arbitrator dated 07.04.2017. OMP (COMM) 286/2017 is filed by Digjam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) whereas OMP (COMM.) 289/2017 is filed by DLF Universal Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the respondent).

2. Some of the brief facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present petitions as stated in the Award are that in 1994, the respondent commenced a project for putting up an office complex. The claimant applied for allotment of office space. On 30.07.1994, the claimant paid Rs.81,70,752 as part payment. Another sum of Rs.40,85,376/- was paid on 30.11.1994. On 15.04.1995, the parties entered into an agreement. In terms of the agreement, the time for delivery of possession was 3-1/2 years from 15.04.1995. However, Clause 15 of the agreement provided that whenever the block is ready, an intimation can be given to the claimant for re- scheduling the payments. It is further stated that on 01.02.1996, the respondent is said to have informed the claimant that the construction of the corporate park was at an advanced stage and that the respondent was one year ahead of schedule and expected to apply for completion in March/April, 1996. On 12.04.1996 in view of early completion of the project, the respondent is said to have written to the claimant regarding pre-ponement of the handing over schedule and forwarded a fresh schedule for payments to the claimant. The claimant made part payments. The claimant on 13.06.1996 paid Rs.40,85,376/-, on 14.06.1996 paid Rs.76,66,384/- and on 19.12.1996 paid Rs. 76,66,384/-. On 09.04.1997, the respondent is again said to have written to the claimant pointing out that a balance of Rs.1,59,76,809/- remains unpaid. It was also pointed out in the said letter that the respondent is in a position to register the property in favour of the claimant and hence, sought the above amount which included the stamp duty charges and registration charges. On 21.04.1997, the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana granted occupation certificate to the building in question. On 05.07.1997, the respondent called upon the claimant to pay the maintenance charges in terms of the agreement between the parties. Several reminders in this regard are said to have been sent. It is the case of the respondent that despite several reminders, the claimant failed to pay the full amount. Hence, the respondent has vide communication dated 23.07.1999 informed the claimant that on account of breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement by the claimant, the agreement stood automatically cancelled and the earnest money stands forfeited.

3. Whether the Claimant failed in performing the agreement to sell making the due payments?
4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the claims raised?
5. Whether the respondent is entitled to the adjustment as claimed as against the amounts payable by the claimant to the respondent in the case of DLF Universal Ltd. Vs Digjam Ltd. and Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd.?
6. Whether the Respondent is entitled to the Counter Claims raised by it?

8. Accordingly, the learned Arbitrator accepted the claim of the claimant for refund of the amount to the extent of Rs.5,00,29,615/-. The Award also awards interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the claim statement up to 30.04.2017. Including the interest, a total amount of Rs.17,58,34,084.88/- was awarded in favour of the claimant. However, the award directs adjustment of the Award amount against the amount payable by the claimant to the respondent in the other arbitration case, namely, DLF Universal Ltd. vs. Digjam Ltd. and Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. That case was also adjudicated by the learned arbitrator alongwith this case. An award dated 07.04.2017 was passed in favour of the respondent and against the respondent and Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd. for Rs.31.32 crores in that case.

13. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the claimant has vehemently argued that the forfeiture of the earnest money as claimed by the respondent has been quashed by the learned Arbitrator and hence, the claimant is entitled to interest as awarded.

14. The bone of contention between the parties is the direction in the Award allowing the respondent to adjust the Awarded amount with the award in favour of the respondent in a separate arbitration proceedings. The learned Arbitrator was dealing with two separate arbitration proceedings. The first arbitration proceedings pertain to the present agreement between the parties for the commercial property in Gurgaon. The second arbitration proceedings pertain to the three purchase orders dated 15.12.1994 placed by the then Chemical Division of the claimant. The learned Arbitrator has on the same date i.e. 07.04.2017 passed an award in that proceedings (Second Arbitration Proceedings) in favour of the respondent for Rs.31,32,85,560.16/-. After adjusting the present award of Rs.17,58,08,179.12/- in favour of the claimant, the Award in the Second Arbitration proceedings has been restricted to Rs.13,74,77,381/- plus interest in favour of the respondent. The award in that proceedings (Second Arbitration Proceedings) has been passed jointly and severally against the respondents therein, namely, Digjam Ltd. (Claimant herein) and Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd., being a Division of Nirma Ltd.