Delve into a comprehensive legal analysis by the court regarding non-compliance with lease agreement payment terms. The case involves intricate details of contract law and the court’s interpretation of the parties’ obligations in the context of the dispute. Read on to understand the legal nuances discussed in the judgment.
Facts
- The High Court of Orissa declined to entertain the disputed questions of fact in the writ jurisdiction.
- The appellant was advised to seek redressal from the appropriate forum for its grievance.
- The lease of the property in question was granted to Utkal Ashok Hotel Corporation Limited by the State of Odisha for 99 years.
- Utkal Ashok Hotel Corporation Limited was running ‘Hotel Nilachal Ashok’ in the said premises at Puri.
- The appellant sought to quash the letter terminating the Letter of Intent (LOI) issued by Utkal Ashok Hotel Corporation Limited.
- Utkal Ashok Hotel Corporation Limited decided to terminate the LOI as the appellant failed to comply with clause 2, requiring payment of Rs. 9.34 crores within 30 days.
- A sum of Rs. 8.82 crores was to be paid upfront as a one-time non-refundable amount.
- Appellant was the highest bidder and a Letter of Intent was issued in their favor.
- Appellant requested multiple extensions for payment which were granted by UAHCL.
- Appellant deposited a portion of the upfront amount but failed to pay the balance within the extended time.
- Appellant made partial payments in December 2010 and January 2011.
- UAHCL required appellant to bear the liability for addressing employee grievances and voluntary retirement benefits.
- Appellant filed a special writ petition before the High Court seeking direction for lease agreement execution.
- UAHCL decided to lease out the property for 40 years but the agreement could not be executed due to pending payments.
- Appellant was required to pay Rs.9.34 crores within 30 days for the lease agreement.
Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of Plaint Under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC: A Critical Analysis
Arguments
- The appellant contends that UAHCL did not execute the lease agreement as agreed upon but instead raised the issue of the appellant bearing total liability for providing voluntary retirement to employees.
- The LOI’s Clause 11 allowed the appellant to consider VRS for employees but did not make it mandatory.
- The appellant made payments as required, totaling Rs. 8.82 crores, despite delays in the payment schedule.
- The appellant cites the case of Unitech Ltd. vs. Telangana State Industrial Infrastructure Corporation wherein the entitlement to seek a refund was not questioned, and the availability of land for the project was confirmed.
- The appellant argues that the termination by UAHCL was unjustified, and the lease agreement should have been executed.
- Appellant failed to comply with the initial payment requirement of Rs.9.34 crores within 30 days as per the LOI terms.
- Failure to adhere to the payment terms resulted in the termination of the LOI.
- UAHCL is justified in retaining the upfront amount of Rs. 8.82 crores as it incurred expenses of roughly Rs. 4.5 crores, which the appellant is liable to reimburse.
- The extension granted for payment was a concession, but even with the extension, the appellant did not meet the deadline of 15.12.2010.
- The dispute revolves around the non-compliance with the initial payment obligations as stipulated in the LOI.
- The Lease Agreement was to be executed upon compliance with the initial payment terms outlined in the LOI.
- UAHCL incurred idle expenses due to non-materialization of the lease because of appellant’s default in payment.
Also Read: Validity of Debt and Enforcement of Section 138 NI Act
Analysis
- Appellant failed to adhere to the terms in the LOI dated 19.01.2010, leading to termination by UAHCL in 2013.
- Appellant’s delayed payments were not condoned by UAHCL despite partial acceptance.
- Extension requests for payment were made by the appellant, but full payment was not made on time.
- Partial payments made after the deadline cannot be retained by UAHCL to avoid unjust enrichment.
- No positive action by UAHCL post 15.12.2010 to extend payment deadline or condone delay.
- VRS consideration letter does not indicate condoning of payment delay.
- Appellant’s failure to comply with payment terms as per LOI despite extensions granted by UAHCL.
- High Court justified in concluding appellant’s non-compliance with payment terms.
- Refund of payment to appellant not warranted due to their conduct causing delay and loss to UAHCL.
- The one-time upfront payment indicated in the LOI is non-refundable for execution of Operating Lease Agreement.
- Due to appellant’s delays, litigation, and property non-utilization, UAHCL incurred expenses.
- Directions sought for lease agreement execution not applicable post LOI termination.
- Recourse to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not excluded altogether in a contractual matter.
- A public law remedy is available for enforcing legal rights subject to well-settled parameters.
- Reference to key decisions like Arya Vyasa Sabha v. Commissioner of Hindu Charitable & Religious Institutions & Endowments, DLF Housing Construction Private Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation, National Textile Corporation Ltd. vs Haribox Swalram, Dwarka Prasad v. B.D. Agarwal, and Defence Enclave Residents’ Society v. State of U.P. was made by the High Court.
- High Court concluded that disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved in the present type of writ petition.
- The High Court did not dismiss the writ petition on maintainability but indicated that the contentions required evidence recording, thus directing the parties to an appropriate forum.
- UAHCL is allowed to deal with the property or re-tender it despite the pending suit.
- The appellant can pursue the claim of interest in the civil suit.
- UAHCL is permitted to retain the amount, giving the appellant the liberty to file a civil suit for recovery.
- UAHCL can present a contention for setting off the amount or seek a counterclaim in the civil court proceedings.
- The competent civil court will independently consider the above aspects on their own merits.
Also Read: Enlargement on Bail in Illegal Mining Case
Decision
- The appellant is reserved liberty to file a civil suit for recovery of Rs.4.41 crores paid to UAHCL on 17.02.2010
- The amount of Rs.3 crores deposited by the appellant before this Court shall be refunded to the appellant with accrued interest
- The prayer of the appellant to quash the letter dated 10.12.2013 terminating the LOI dated 19.01.2010 is rejected
- The termination of LOI dated 19.01.2010 is upheld
- UAHCL is directed to refund the amounts deposited by the appellant on specific dates totaling Rs.4.11 crores within four weeks
- The order dated 09.03.2017 passed by High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in W.P. (C) No.23103/2013 stands modified
- The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs
Case Title: PAULMECH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE STATE OF ORISSA (2021 INSC 600)
Case Number: C.A. No.-006023-006023 / 2021
