The Delhi High Court on Thursday rejected a plea by Senior Advocate Chander M Lall seeking higher damages from DLF Home Developers Limited over delay in handing over possession of commercial office spaces [Chander Mohan Lall Vs DLF].
A Division Bench of Justices V Kameswar Rao and Vinod Kumar dismissed an appeal against a single judge order that had upheld an arbitral tribunal's decision to award Lall compensation at the rate of ₹25 per square foot per month.
Lall had sought damages at ₹200 per square foot per month from June 10, 2009, till the actual handing over of possession in November 2014.
The dispute arose from Retail/ Commercial Office Space Buyer’s Agreements executed between the parties on May 31, 2006.
Lall’s case was that the last instalment was payable only after DLF informed him that it had received the occupancy certificate from the Delhi Development Authority. He claimed that such intimation was received only in 2011, though DLF had obtained the occupancy certificate in 2009.
On the other hand, DLF countered that possession could not be handed over because Lall had defaulted in the payment of the last instalment and other charges.
The matter went to arbitration. The arbitrator held that DLF was under an obligation to inform Lall about the receipt of the occupancy certificate. Since DLF failed to prove delivery of such intimation, the arbitrator awarded damages to Lall at ₹25 per square foot per month from June 10, 2009 to January 12, 2011.
However, the arbitrator refused to award damages beyond January 12, 2011, holding that both parties had contributed to the delay thereafter.
A single judge Bench of the High Court later modified the award by directing DLF to pay damages at ₹25 per square foot per month till possession was actually handed over. The single judge also set aside the direction requiring Lall to pay interest on ground rent from February 12, 2011.
Before the Division Bench, Lall argued that Clause 11.4 of the agreement, which fixed compensation at ₹25 per square foot per month, could not apply to a case where the delay was caused by the builder’s negligence.
He contended that the clause applied only where the builder abandoned the project or became unable to give possession within the agreed period.
The Court, however, refused to interfere with the arbitral tribunal’s interpretation of the contract.
“We do not find the interpretation given by the learned Arbitrator to be unreasonable or perverse for us to interfere in this appeal under Section 37 of the Act,” the Bench proceeded to rule.
The Court also noted that Lall had failed to prove his claim for higher damages. It said the lease deeds and MagicBricks printouts relied on by him had not been proved in accordance with the law.
"The finding of the learned Single Judge is that the appellant has failed to prove claim for higher damages and as such the claim was denied by the learned Arbitrator by holding that the appellant was unable to prove the documents in questions ... The conclusions drawn by the learned Arbitrator is a finding of fact which was confirmed by the learned Single Judge. It cannot be varied more particularly in appeal under Section 37 of the Act,” the Court said.
Accordingly, Lall's appeal was dismissed.
Lall appeared in person along with Advocate Nancy Roy, Ananya Chug and Ananya Mehan.
DLF was represented by Senior Advocate BB Gupta with Advocates Vishnu Kanth and Karan Jain.
[Read Judgment]