Judgement on Termination of Development Agreement

Please follow the steps on how I can cancel this development agreement with this manufacturer. If legal advice is required, please contact me briefly regarding the content of the notice. 54. The learned lawyer submits that the plaintiff did not serve the defendant with an amended copy of the application. The conclusion of the informed arbitrator that the respondent had ample opportunity to file an additional written statement and a counterclaim is therefore perverse. The learned arbitrator had treated the respondent`s response to the notice of termination as a response to the request to amend the statement of claim and had wrongly established that no further written statement or counterclaim had been filed by the respondent. It argues that, in the circumstances and circumstances of the case, time was not essential to the contract. 10l At this stage, we are required to establish that the High Court referred to the correspondence between the parties. She referred to the letter of 19.6.2013 in extenso. That letter stated that since the owner of the land had terminated the development agreement and the memorandum of understanding, he had taken over all the physical and real ownership of that land and the developer had been asked to remove his machinery and structural materials from that land.

That letter was replied to a letter dated 16.7.2013 refuting the fact that the physical ownership of the property had been taken over by the landowner and stating that the property was still with the developer. The Bench Division reproduced in detail the preferred petition under section 9 of the 1996 Act. We think it is appropriate to reproduce the same thing:- 3. When disputes arose over the payment, the defendant terminated the Memorandum of Understanding, confiscated the bond and invoked the arbitration clause by issuing an opinion through his lawyer on 6.6.2013. The complainant responded to the notice of termination by stating that he had carried out extensive construction work on the property through the construction of three buildings and many other steps. The Appellant also argued that the Respondent had not received the environmental certificate for the project and that, as a result, other work had been interrupted. The Appellant required the Respondent to perform its portion of the contract by obtaining the required environmental permit, issue an irrevocable power of attorney, reimburse the portion of the amount payable, and pay interest on the deposit. 39. The plaintiff`s learned counsel submits that the plaintiff`s original members handed over their respective apartments and the building therein to the defendant for renovation. The plaintiff`s apartments were demolished by the defendant and only a few buildings were erected by the defendant on that property. The erudite arbitrator should therefore have asked the defendant to always hand over ownership of the structures to the plaintiff.

It contends that the plaintiff became the owner of the land and the structure on it as soon as the company was formed and that the transfer was granted under the Maharashtra Property Apartments Act 1963. A learned arbitrator completely neglected this aspect of the issue. The transfer of the land has already been granted by the former owner in favour of the applicant. The applicant had thus become the owner of the property and the immovable therein. The learned arbitrator could therefore not have separated the structure from the land and could not order the transfer of only ownership of the land and not the structure built on it contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Property Apartments Act 1963. 2. The development contract does not require mandatory registration. 31. After a thorough examination of the facts, the Judicial Division adopted the following position:- “. The development agreement also provided that the appellant was entitled to own the land and, therefore, by means of a separate receipt of possession dated February 28, 2008, the respondent remitted to the appellant the ownership of the land that was the subject of the development contract. .

The Court of First Instance concluded that the action agreement for the termination of the development agreement in favour of Dr. T.N Patel HUF is not fraud, as alleged by the plaintiff. She argued that the Appellant . of 17.9.2005 in favour of Narayan Developers, executed by defendant No. 6-Tribhovanbaug Park Housing Society Ltd., and he continued to pray for the specific execution of the development contract of. of the plaintiff that the termination of the development contract of 22.9.2000 is a falsified and private opinion obtained from the defendants of Shri J.J Patel cannot be believed about the expert`s report. that in the event of any discrepancy or dispute between the Parties regarding the significance of the construction of this Memorandum of Understanding or with respect to the terms of the Development Agreement or with respect to the project carried out under this Letter of Intent or the Development Agreement to be executed between the Parties, it will be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Arbitration Act; 1996.” 14. By letter of 15 November 2016, the applicant asked the defendant to keep it informed of the restructuring of the undertaking.

The respondent submitted a bar graph showing the expected completion of the new building by July 2018. The applicant submits that even the said bar chart was not followed by the respondent. In February 2017, the plaintiff filed a petition with this court under Article 9 of the Arbitration Act against the defendant, which requested, inter alia, for interim measures, i.e. for the payment of rent, for the completion of the project, etc. By order of 9 March 2017, that court ordered the defendant to pay the monthly allowance and arrears to the plaintiff`s members by 31 May 2017 at the latest. 44. The learned lawyer submits that, although the plaintiff did not present oral evidence before the learned arbitrator, the learned arbitrator admitted a large number of the plaintiff`s claims. The decision to terminate the development contract was not taken by the applicant until the end of July 2018, after which the applicant filed an application to amend the application. It submits that the reply to the notice of dismissal was regarded as a response to the applicant`s amendment before the learned arbitrator. It submits that, although the respondent requested the possibility of filing an additional written statement on the amended application and of filing a counterclaim on the merits before the learned arbitrator, the learned arbitrator did not give such an opportunity. . Confidence in the defendant promoter, it terminated the development contract by letter of 07.01.2014.

The defendant then demanded the actual performance of the development contract. Ho. The plaintiff is required to bring the present action, in which he seeks, inter alia, a finding that the termination of the development contract of 15.05.2008 is put forward. S.J. Kathawalla, J.: – The plaintiff company has serious complaints against the defendants/developers who have entered into a development agreement with the company dated 15-05-2008. The development contract is not registered. it is only notarized. I also have a photocopy of the agreement, but the original is with the builder.

50M The defendant`s lawyer by training relied on paragraphs 28 to 30, 45, 48 and 49 of the power of attorney granted by the plaintiff to the defendant`s shareholders and argued that the defendant had obtained the power of attorney to conclude a contract for the ownership of various residential buildings built and constructed by the defendant on the basis of that power of attorney. The respondent was also entitled to appropriate the proceeds of the sale of the apartments built and to be constructed in the said building. It relied on section 31 of that power of attorney and argued that under that clause, an interest in the property had to be created in favour of the respondent ….