Farmhouse lease dispute: Delhi Court orders to include Politician Kuldeep Bishnoi as party in the suit
February 4, 2024
Delhi High Court directs SDM to conduct demarcation of farmland situated in Fatehpur Beri
March 7, 2024
The arbitrator, M P Mehndiratta (former judge) appointed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, has allowed a claim filed by India’s largest multiplex cinema operating company, PVR INOX Ltd, against a Gurugram-based builder and ordered to refund entire security deposit with interest @ 18 percent p.a. from the date of payment made.
While passing the order, the arbitrator said the claimant lawfully terminated the MOU and sought a refund of the security amount within its rights, but the respondent failed to make the refund despite demand, and thus, the claimant was constrained to invoke the arbitration clause and to initiate these proceedings.
In the circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the claimant has become entitled to costs of the proceedings. Resultantly, I hereby pass an award in favour of the claimant and against the respondent for recovery of Rs. 24,93,750 (towards refund of security amount) with pre-claim interest (simple) at the rate of 18 per cent per annum on the said amount (principal sum) from the date of deposit till the filing of the statement of claim.
The claimant shall also be entitled to pendente lite as well as future interest from the date of award till realisation at the same rate on the principal amount and shall be further entitled to costs of arbitral proceedings. The counterclaim raised by the respondent stands rejected, added the arbitrator.
The Arbitrator held that the MoU dated July 26, 2016, executed for a “Multiplex” in the Commercial Mall in Sector-92, Gurugram has been lawfully terminated by PVR on the ground of alleged unauthorised use of “PVR’s Trade Mark/Trade Name” for promotion and marketing of said Mall/property by the builder M/s. AMB Infraventure Pvt. Ltd without prior approval from PVR against the terms of the said MoU.
PVR represented through Advocate Sumit Gehlot, in Arbitration produced the brochures and advertisements/floor plan, leaflets mentioning “PVR CINEMA FOR SALE” and the alleged false representations made by the builder to the general public “Only one PVR screen left and 21 years lease signed with PVR” also produced printouts from builder’s own website, as per which builder has used “PVR’s Trade Mark/Name” for marketing/promotion/sale in said Mall without permission and the construction of said mall is still not complete, which has been appreciated, considered and allowed in favour of PVR by the arbitrator.
It was contended by Advocate representing PVR Sumit Gehlot that the builder has misused the goodwill and reputation of PVR and has been selling commercial space/shops in the said mall on the basis of goodwill of PVR and has misrepresented to the general public that 21 years’ lease has been signed with PVR.
The arbitrator also held that the builder failed to complete the construction of the said commercial space for “Multiplex” within 72 months and to handover possession, in the time period provided in the said MoU and also awarded cost of the arbitration in favour of PVR.
The arbitrator rejected all the claims of builder M/s. AMB Infraventure, including execution of lease deed for operating of “Multiplex” in the said Mall by PVR and payment of balance security deposit and litigation cost and compensation of Rs.20 lakh sought by builder.
The claimant PVR was represented through Sumit Gehlot and T S Thakran, advocates of Fidelegal Advocates and Solicitors.
This story was featured in following publications. Click to read.
