In a recent case before the Delhi High Court involving Splendor Spectrum One and a unit buyer, the court has made significant judgements regarding refund and contract law. The petitioner sought a refund of her invested amount for three units in the ‘Splendor Spectrum One’ complex. The respondent, Splendor Spectrum One, had returned a portion of the amount but disputes arose regarding the remaining refund. This summary provides insights into the court’s decision and the legal implications surrounding the case.
Facts
- Original Names Instead of Respondent No. 1 or Petitioner No. 1
- The petitioner entered into three identical Tripartite Agreements for the sale of three Units in question, office spaces numbering 410, 411, 412, admeasuring 3114 sq. feet of super area on the fourth floor of Tower South at Sector-65, Gurgaon.
- On 05.03.2020, the petitioner paid an amount of Rs. 77,85,000/- for the allotment of the said units.
- The sale consideration for each unit was Rs. 46,71,000/- as per the terms of the Agreements.
- The respondent no. 1 company developed and constructed South Tower B and North Tower D on the land admeasuring 1.7457 acres, consisting of IT Office Spaces under the name and style ‘Splendor Spectrum One’.
- The respondent no. 1 registered the Complex with Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority vide Registration No 376/2017 dated 07.12.2017 and received the Occupancy Certificate from DGTCP vide Memo No ZP-669-Vol-II/SD(DK)/2019/215058 dated 06.09.2019.
Arguments
- The petitioner issued a Notice of Arbitration to execute the Conveyance Deed and hand over possession of the units, but no formal reply was filed by the respondents.
- Respondent alleges that the petitioner was informed via email that the Agreement to Sell was terminated.
- Petitioner claims the respondent is avoiding contractual obligations and refunded the principal amount paid.
- Petitioner did not consent to refund or cancellation of the allotments, but is seeking mandatory relief.
- There is a dispute regarding the refund amount retained by the respondent.
- Respondents argue that the petitioner has not proven readiness and willingness to perform essential terms of the Agreement.
- Reliance is placed on legal cases to support the argument that interim relief can only be granted if final relief can also be granted.
- Respondents claim that the petitioner was not ready and willing for performance of her part of the Agreement.
- The respondent has relied on cases such as I.S. Sikandar v K. Subramani and N.P. Thirugnanam v Dr. R. Jagan Mohan Rao to support their arguments.
- The issues of fact or law are to be determined by the arbitral Tribunal, not finally by the court.
- The respondent cited Surjit Singh Bhatia v Tej Raj Singh Goel case to argue that the petitioner was not ready and willing to perform based on letters claiming refund.
- The scope of inquiry under section 9 is limited to a prima facie examination of the issues raised by the parties, as explained in KSL & Industries Ltd. v National Textiles Corporation Ltd.
Analysis
- The petitioner had entered into an Agreement to Sell dated 05.03.2020 for three units in the Complex.
- The petitioner sought a refund of her invested amount through emails after facing unresponsiveness from the respondent.
- A total of Rs. 30,00,000/- was returned to the petitioner by the respondent in two instalments.
- There was no signed MoU between the parties, therefore no Assured Returns were guaranteed by the respondent.
- The petitioner demanded cancellation of allotments and refund of money, which was eventually returned.
- The petitioner initiated a process for redressal of grievances through arbitration.
- The interpretation of the MoU terms and its scope falls under the domain of the arbitral Tribunal.
- The petitioner received the principal amount paid to the respondent, and her remaining claims were monetary in nature.
- A Notice of Invocation has already been given by the petitioner for arbitration.
- The petitioner expressed concerns about the credibility of JLL in relation to the deal.
- The judgements cited in previous cases are not applicable to the present proceedings under Section 9 of the Act, 1996.
- The reliefs sought are primarily related to refund or claims of money, which do not result in irreparable loss or injury to the petitioner.
- It is held that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief under Section 9 of the Act, 1996.
Decision
- The observations made are not a final expression on the merits of the case
- Parties are free to raise their contentions in the arbitration proceedings
- The present petition and pending applications are dismissed
- Judgements referred to by the counsel for the respondents are applicable to relief for Specific Performance of a contract
Case Title: VIJAY MAHESHWARI Vs. SPLENDOR BUILDWELL PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR. (2024:DHC:4745)
Case Number: O.M.P.(I) (COMM.)-42/2024
