Tiêu đề 4. COP 85 Written Submissions by landowners.pdf ✅

1 IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SPECIAL COURT IN THE CADRE OF DISTRICT JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF COMMERCIAL DISPUTES AT HYDERABAD C.O.P. NO. 85 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SAS I TOWER Private Limited ...Petitioner AND Smt. Harvinder Kaur And Anr. ...Respondents WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS I. Prayer of the Petitioner A. The Petition has been filed seeking an ad-interim injunction against the Respondents restraining them from alienating or transferring in any manner land admeasuring Ac.2.37.6 Gts. (excluding Ac.0.22 Gts acquired by Government for road widening) and built-up area to an extent of 18,85,125 sq.ft. allocated to the Respondents till the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. B. Clause 15(c) of the Development Agreement cum GPA dated 16.08.2018 (For brevity, ‘DAGPA’) has been relied upon to contend that there is an arbitration agreement/clause between the parties. On the strength of this clause, the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court under S. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 has been invoked. II. Facts (Relevant Dates and Events) Date Event The Respondents are owners of Ac.10.32 Gts in Sy.No.19 at Khajaguda village Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy district (“Total Subject Land”). Please see Para 5 of the Counter for flow of title to the Respondents. The Petitioner verified all the title documents of the Respondents including the gift deed and gift cancellation deed in respect of Chetna
2 Kaur and was satisfied with the title of the Respondents. (Paras 18 & 34 of the Counter) 01-11- 2017 MOU executed between Petitioner and Respondents wherein 50% of Total Subject Land was to be purchased by Petitioner at Rs. 40 Cr per acre. Total Subject Land to be put for development. (Copy at Pg. 21-23 of Petitioner’s Documents) Note: MOU specifically states that it will become effective only if Petitioner pays Rs.50 Cr by end of December 2017 and additional Rs.125 Cr. By 31-03-2018. Neither of these conditions were fulfilled. Petitioner could pay only Rs.39.65 Cr by 31-03-2018. Thus, the MOU never came into effect. 03.02.2018 The Petitioner obtained encumbrance certificate relating to the Total Subject Land, which reflected the gift deed and gift cancellation deed in respect of Chetna Kaur. (Copy at Pg. 172-173 of the Respondents’ Documents) 16-08- 2018 DAGPA executed between the Parties wherein the Respondents handed over “Scheduled Land”, i.e. Ac.5.16 Gts for development. The DAGPA also contemplated development of the “Project” [defined in Clause 1(a)(iii)] which covered development of Total Subject Land. (Copy at Pg.39-65 of Petitioner’s documents) Note: (i) This DAGPA does not deal with the sale of Ac.5.16 Gts to the Petitioner as contemplated in the MOU. (ii) While the DAGPA refers to a purported separate sale agreement with respect to Ac.5.16 Gts, no such agreement was ever executed. (iii)Clause 13(h) of the DAGPA specifically states that the MOU stands superseded and cancelled. 24-09- 2018 Chetna Kaur passed away. This fact was intimated to the partners/directors of the Petitioner. They were intimated by whatsapp messages to attend her prayer meeting at New Delhi on 07.10.2018.
3 (Copy of whatsapp screenshots at pg. 27-28 of the Respondents’ documents) 29-12- 2018 Registered Allocation Agreement between the Parties wherein respective portions were set out (Page 66-87 of Petitioner’s documents). 22-02- 2019 Petitioner purchased Ac. 1:06 Gts through two registered sale deeds. (Copies at pg. 88-101 and 102-116 of Petitioner’s documents) Note: These sale deeds do not refer to the DAGPA at all. 22-03- 2019 Deed of Amendment to the DAGPA executed between the Parties to modify the extent that would be purchased by the Petitioner in view of the Petitioner’s inability to purchase the extent as earlier agreed because of its need for funds (liquidity) for the Project. Note: (i) Unnumbered para 3 on page 2 of this Deed clearly states that “in the interest of timely completion of the project, the developer needs a much higher level of liquidity than was originally envisaged and hence it is desirable that the extent meant for outright sale should be scaled down”. (ii) It was categorically agreed that only such extent of land would be transferred commensurate to the consideration received up to 31- 03-2019. In lieu of the balance extent which remains untransferred the Respondents would be allocated a higher built-up area. 23-03- 2019 The Petitioner purchased an additional Ac. 0:30.4 Gts by a registered sale deed. (Copy at pg. 117-134 of Petitioner’s documents) Note: This extent pertained to the land which was subject matter of gift to Chetna Kaur and subsequent cancellation. (Please see sketch map of the extents purchased by Petitioner at Pg. 1 of Respondents’ Documents). 31-03- 2019 Up to this date, the Petitioner was able to pay only Rs. 47.65 Crore. The total land purchased by him was Ac. 1:36.4 Gts. in lieu of the aforesaid amounts paid by him. (See paras 10 and 11 of the counter affidavit)
4 03-04- 2019 Petitioner obtained building permission from GHMC. (Copy at pg. 2-6 of the Respondents’ Documents) Note: As per clause 9(a), r/w Schedule D of the DAGPA (See pg. 51 and 60 of Petitioner’s Documents), the project was required to be completed within 3 years from this date, i.e. by 02.04.2022. 25-06- 2019 A Supplemental Allocation Agreement was executed between the parties, where it was agreed that the Petitioner would construct a minimum of 60 lakh sq ft of built-up area in two towers, Tower A and Tower B. The extent allocable to the parties were set out. (Copy at pg. 7-16 of Respondents’ documents) Note: (i) Clause 4 of the Agreement categorically set out that the Petitioners was required to retain equal extent as the Respondents. (ii) Clause 7 of this Agreement entitled the Respondents at their own discretion to sell further extent of land. (iii)This Agreement has been deliberately suppressed by the Petitioner because clause 7 makes it clear that the Petitioner had no right to purchase any further land. 28.08.2021 A registered Additional Supplementary Deed and Allocation of Area Agreement was executed between the parties to modify the allocation of extent of built-up areas between the parties. (Copy at Pg. 138-161 of Petitioner’s documents). Note: (i) It was categorically agreed (pg. 143) that “the Land Owners will be entitled to 29.6% of the project with a minimum of 18 lakh Sq Ft of area”. (ii) Annexure ‘A’ clearly sets out the summary of the areas allocated to Respondents, the area required to be retained by the Petitioner and the area which the Petitioner can sell. As per this, the Petitioner is required to retain 17,36,467 sq, ft which is roughly 18 lakh sq. ft.