Since, Respondent No.1 did not respond to the notice of the Appellant issued under Clause 18 of the DA, which carried an arbitration clause, the Appellant was constrained to approach the High Court. On the cancellation of the agreement and GPA were also publicised in a newspaper by the Appellant. Aggrieved by this act, the Appellant gave notice to terminate the DA and to cancel the GPA. Respondent No.1 was, however, unable to finish the work within the allotted time. 1 accepted the conditions of the DA and stated that he would build 45 percent of the constructed space before or on the deadline of the 15-month period, retaining the other 55 percent of the developed section for himself. However, this deadline could have been extended with the payment of a penalty. 1.Īccording to the DA, Respondent No.1 had to build “Amay Apartments” on the property within 15 months. 2, in the civil appeal was the partner of Respondent No. The Appellant, thereafter, signed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of Respondent No. A “Development Agreement” (DA) was subsequently signed by the Appellant and Respondent No.1. 1), a company specialising in the building of homes and commercial buildings, learned of the Appellant’s intention to build such a residential and commercial complex and approached him. Samarth Builders & Developers (Respondent No. The Appellant intended to build residential and commercial complexes on this property. The case related to one Babanrao (the Appellant), who was the owner of a property situated in Aurangabad. Residential, Commercial & Township Developmentīabanrao Rajaram Pund v.Anti Sexual Harassment and Discrimination at Workplace.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
March 2023
Categories |