CWP-29568-2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 212 DR. JAGMAL SINGH TDI INFRTECH LTD. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present:- Mr. Saurav Saini, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Arundhati, Advocate for Mr. Shobit Phutela, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate for TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed against the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), SAS Nagar, Mohali, dated 06.10.2017, Annexure P the amount deposited by the petitioner respondent - TDI Infratech and compensation 2. Brief facts of the case are, Buyer’s Agreement’ bearing no. 21 Exclusive in TDI City to be developed Infratech Limited and Sector 110-111 at SAS Nagar, Mohali. In terms of clause 2019 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Date of Decision: DR. JAGMAL SINGH Versus TDI INFRTECH LTD. AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Saurav Saini, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Arundhati, Advocate for Mr. Shobit Phutela, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate for TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed against the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), SAS Nagar, Mohali, dated , Annexure P-13, seeking refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner for purchase of floor from the TDI Infratech Limited (hereinafter re and compensation of ₹5,00,000 along with the litigation expenses. Brief facts of the case are, the petitioner greement’, dated 03.08.2013, Annexure P bearing no. 211 (first floor), measuring 1478 sq. feet Exclusive in TDI City to be developed by respondents no.1 and 2 Infratech Limited and Maloney Investments Private Limited 111 at SAS Nagar, Mohali. In terms of clause IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-29568-2019 Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 …Petitioner(s) …Respondent(s) TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Saurav Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shobit Phutela, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Devyani Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.2. The petition has been filed against the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), SAS Nagar, Mohali, dated seeking refund of ₹35,86,679 along with interest, for purchase of floor from the Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Company’), 5,00,000 along with the litigation expenses. the petitioner entered to ‘Floor dated 03.08.2013, Annexure P-1, for purchase of floor 1478 sq. feet, in Tuscan Residency by respondents no.1 and 2, TDI Investments Private Limited, respectively, in 111 at SAS Nagar, Mohali. In terms of clause 9 of the Purchase The petition has been filed against the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), SAS Nagar, Mohali, dated 35,86,679 along with interest, for purchase of floor from the , entered to ‘Floor floor Residency , TDI , respectively, in 9 of the Purchase AMAN DUA 2026.07.14 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-29568-2019 Agreement, possession of within a period of thirty date of agreement all the payments as per the agreed terms. Despite rec the possession it was later offered vide acceptable to the petitioner as it had been issued at a time when even basic amenities in the said residential area offer of possession notice dated 15.10.20 possession and basic amenities/necessities along with was however petitioner, and application under Section 22 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ in the alternative, refund ₹35,86,679 along with interest and compensation. The application was decided by the Lok Adalat vide impugned award dated holding as under: 15. to hand over the residential flat to the applicant after deducting PLC, service tax, IFMS charges and holding over charges apart from th were under obligation to allottee within period of 36 months with grace of six months from the date of this agreement. This agreement is dated 2019 -2- possession of the premises was to be delivered within a period of thirty-six months with grace period of six months from the date of agreement, subject to force majeure circumstances and all the payments as per the agreed terms. Despite rec the possession was not offered by the Company it was later offered vide letter dated 25.08.2014 acceptable to the petitioner as it had been issued at a time when even basic amenities in the said residential area were not offer of possession meaningless. The petitioner, accordingly, 15.10.2015, Annexure P-2, to the Company possession and sought registration of the residential floor in his name and basic amenities/necessities along with the completion certificate. No action however taken by the Company, nor was t , and thus, he approached the Permanent Lok Adalat by filing an application under Section 22-C of the Legal Services Authorit (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1987 Act’), seeking possession in the alternative, refund of the deposited amount of sale consideration of along with interest and compensation. The application was decided by the Lok Adalat vide impugned award dated holding as under: 15. The case of the applicant is that the respondent be directed to hand over the residential flat to the applicant after deducting PLC, service tax, IFMS charges and holding over charges apart from compensation to the tune of Rs. that under clause 9 of the floor buyers agreement the respondents were under obligation to deliver the possession of the fl allottee within period of 36 months with grace of six months from the date of this agreement. This agreement is dated the premises was to be delivered to the allottee grace period of six months from the circumstances and on receipt of all the payments as per the agreed terms. Despite receiving the due payments, not offered by the Company as per the settled terms. When 25.08.2014, Annexure P-11, it was not acceptable to the petitioner as it had been issued at a time when even basic not available. This rendered the meaningless. The petitioner, accordingly, issued a legal , to the Company regarding the said residential floor in his name and completion certificate. No action nor was the possession offered to the the Permanent Lok Adalat by filing an C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 seeking possession of the floor or, the deposited amount of sale consideration of along with interest and compensation. The application was decided by the Lok Adalat vide impugned award dated 06.10.2017, by The case of the applicant is that the respondent be directed to hand over the residential flat to the applicant after deducting PLC, service tax, IFMS charges and holding over charges apart compensation to the tune of Rs.5 lacs. It is admitted fact at under clause 9 of the floor buyers agreement the respondents deliver the possession of the floor to the allottee within period of 36 months with grace of six months from the date of this agreement. This agreement is dated to the allottee grace period of six months from the on receipt of eiving the due payments, When was not acceptable to the petitioner as it had been issued at a time when even basic This rendered the issued a legal the said residential floor in his name and completion certificate. No action to the the Permanent Lok Adalat by filing an Act, 1987 , the deposited amount of sale consideration of along with interest and compensation. The application was , by The case of the applicant is that the respondent be directed to hand over the residential flat to the applicant after deducting PLC, service tax, IFMS charges and holding over charges apart ct at under clause 9 of the floor buyers agreement the respondents oor to the allottee within period of 36 months with grace of six months from the date of this agreement. This agreement is dated AMAN DUA 2026.07.14 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-29568-2019 3.8.20 over to the applicant to this floor latest by 3rd Feb, 2017. The respondents have produced on record letter Ex letter of offer of possession of this floor no. 211 FF was sent to the the floor handing over to the applicant started way far back on 25.8.2014 i.e. after a year of the execution of the floors buyers agreement. The grouse of the applicant is that the respondent can charges and holding over charges. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the applicant is liable to pay all these charges as these are very well entered in the applicant that the respondent be directed to deliver the possession because although the offering possession to the applicant yet there is no such evide produced on record by the respondent to prove that the possession has infact been given to the applicant. Meaning thereby that it is the obligation of the respondents to hand over the possession of the floor completely in all respects. We have critical As not entered in the schedule though they have been mentioned in writing with hand in Schedule Floor Buyers Agre all after thought and certainly the respondents cannot charge club house charges which are shown to the tune of Rs. 50,000 and IFMS charges which are to the tune of Rs. 20,000/ been shown in the schedu pay holding over charges to the respondents since 25.8.2014 the date when the letter of possession was sent to the applicant. Even the applicant is not liable to pay interest on the service tax claimed by the respon 2019 -3- 3.8.2013. Meaning thereby that the possession was to be handing over to the applicant to this floor latest by 3rd Feb, 2017. The respondents have produced on record letter Ex letter of offer of possession of this floor no. 211 FF was sent to the applicant on 25.8.2014. Meaning thereby that the process of the floor handing over to the applicant started way far back on 25.8.2014 i.e. after a year of the execution of the floors buyers agreement. The grouse of the applicant is that the respondent cannot charge PLC charges, service tax IFMS charges club charges and holding over charges. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the applicant is liable to pay all these charges as these are very well entered in the floor buyers agreement Ex-A1 (R2). As far as the plea of the applicant that the respondent be directed to deliver the possession because although the respondents have produced on record letter offering possession to the applicant yet there is no such evide produced on record by the respondent to prove that the possession has infact been given to the applicant. Meaning thereby that it is the obligation of the respondents to hand over the possession of the floor completely in all respects. We have critically gone through the floors buyers agreement Ex As far as the club charges and IFMS are concerned these were not entered in the schedule though they have been mentioned in writing with hand in Schedule- Floor Buyers Agreement Ex-A1 (R2) and we hold that these are all after thought and certainly the respondents cannot charge club house charges which are shown to the tune of Rs. 50,000 and IFMS charges which are to the tune of Rs. 20,000/ been shown in the schedule 1. However the applicant is liable to pay holding over charges to the respondents since 25.8.2014 the date when the letter of possession was sent to the applicant. Even the applicant is not liable to pay interest on the service tax claimed by the respondents as recorded in the final statement of 13. Meaning thereby that the possession was to be handing over to the applicant to this floor latest by 3rd Feb, 2017. The respondents have produced on record letter Ex-R24 vide which a letter of offer of possession of this floor no. 211 FF was sent to applicant on 25.8.2014. Meaning thereby that the process of the floor handing over to the applicant started way far back on 25.8.2014 i.e. after a year of the execution of the floors buyers agreement. The grouse of the applicant is that the respondent not charge PLC charges, service tax IFMS charges club charges and holding over charges. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the applicant is liable to pay all these charges as these are very well entered in A1 (R2). As far as the plea of the applicant that the respondent be directed to deliver the possession espondents have produced on record letter offering possession to the applicant yet there is no such evidence produced on record by the respondent to prove that the possession has infact been given to the applicant. Meaning thereby that it is the obligation of the respondents to hand over the possession of the floor completely in all respects. We have ly gone through the floors buyers agreement Ex-A1 (R2). far as the club charges and IFMS are concerned these were not entered in the schedule though they have been mentioned in -I payment plan attached with A1 (R2) and we hold that these are all after thought and certainly the respondents cannot charge club house charges which are shown to the tune of Rs. 50,000 and IFMS charges which are to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- which has le 1. However the applicant is liable to pay holding over charges to the respondents since 25.8.2014 the date when the letter of possession was sent to the applicant. Even the applicant is not liable to pay interest on the service tax dents as recorded in the final statement of 13. Meaning thereby that the possession was to be handing over to the applicant to this floor latest by 3rd Feb, 2017. The R24 vide which a letter of offer of possession of this floor no. 211 FF was sent to applicant on 25.8.2014. Meaning thereby that the process of the floor handing over to the applicant started way far back on 25.8.2014 i.e. after a year of the execution of the floors buyers agreement. The grouse of the applicant is that the respondent not charge PLC charges, service tax IFMS charges club charges and holding over charges. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the applicant is liable to pay all these charges as these are very well entered in A1 (R2). As far as the plea of the applicant that the respondent be directed to deliver the possession espondents have produced on record letter nce produced on record by the respondent to prove that the possession has infact been given to the applicant. Meaning thereby that it is the obligation of the respondents to hand over the possession of the floor completely in all respects. We have A1 (R2). far as the club charges and IFMS are concerned these were not entered in the schedule though they have been mentioned in payment plan attached with A1 (R2) and we hold that these are all after thought and certainly the respondents cannot charge club house charges which are shown to the tune of Rs. 50,000 and which has le 1. However the applicant is liable to pay holding over charges to the respondents since 25.8.2014 the date when the letter of possession was sent to the applicant. Even the applicant is not liable to pay interest on the service tax dents as recorded in the final statement of AMAN DUA 2026.07.14 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-29568-2019 account Ex is not tenable and same is refused. 16. allowed as under: In view of peculiar circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of award be supplied free of costs to the parties File be consigned to record. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the award, approached this Court by the instant petition. 3. Learned counsel for the were not entitled to claim holding charges from the applicant 25.09.2014, as the had not been issued occupation certificate by the competent authority made the offer of possession dated 25.08.2014 cannot be said that any occupation certificate has with respect to the petitioner’s floor. The occupation certificate dated 04.11.2014, Annexure R Development Authority for floor no.211 2019 -4- account Ex-A2. However rest of the claim made by the applicant is not tenable and same is refused. 16. In view of our above discussion the application is partly allowed as under:- 1. That the respondents are possession to the applicant within 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of award. 2. The applicant is not liable to pay Rs. 50,000/ HOUSE charges and Rs. 20,000/ respondents as claimed by the 3. That the respondents are liable to claim holding over charges from the applicant since 25.9.2014. 4. The applicant is also not liable to pay interest on service tax. However all other claims made through application by the applicant are here tenable. In view of peculiar circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of award be supplied free of costs to the parties File be consigned to record. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the award, approached this Court by petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondents were not entitled to claim holding charges from the applicant , as the possession had not been given by that time. The Company had not been issued occupation certificate by the competent authority the offer of possession dated 25.08.2014 cannot be said that any occupation certificate has with respect to the petitioner’s floor. The occupation certificate dated , Annexure R-4, issued by the Estate Officer Development Authority (GMADA), cannot be accepted as correct since it is oor no.211 measuring an area of 250 square yard However rest of the claim made by the applicant is not tenable and same is refused. In view of our above discussion the application is partly That the respondents are directed to deliver legal possession to the applicant within 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of award. 2. The applicant is not liable to pay Rs. 50,000/- as CLUB HOUSE charges and Rs. 20,000/- as IFMS charges to the respondents as claimed by the respondent. 3. That the respondents are liable to claim holding over charges from the applicant since 25.9.2014. 4. The applicant is also not liable to pay interest on service tax. However all other claims made through application by the applicant are hereby refused being not In view of peculiar circumstances the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of award be supplied free of costs to the parties. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the award, approached this Court by filing petitioner contended that the respondents were not entitled to claim holding charges from the applicant from had not been given by that time. The Company had not been issued occupation certificate by the competent authority, which the offer of possession dated 25.08.2014 superfluous. Even now, it cannot be said that any occupation certificate has been issued to the Company with respect to the petitioner’s floor. The occupation certificate dated , issued by the Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area cannot be accepted as correct since it is measuring an area of 250 square yards, whereas the petitioner However rest of the claim made by the applicant In view of our above discussion the application is partly directed to deliver legal possession to the applicant within 6 months from the date as CLUB as IFMS charges to the 3. That the respondents are liable to claim holding over 4. The applicant is also not liable to pay interest on service tax. However all other claims made through by refused being not In view of peculiar circumstances the parties are left to bear their . filing petitioner contended that the respondents from had not been given by that time. The Company , which Even now, it been issued to the Company with respect to the petitioner’s floor. The occupation certificate dated Greater Mohali Area cannot be accepted as correct since it is , whereas the petitioner AMAN DUA 2026.07.14 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-29568-2019 has been allotted Therefore, it is 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in compliance of the directions issued by the Lok Adalat Company issued a letter dated conveying that he can take holding charges letter reads as under: 3. receive a sum of Rs. charg to 17.03.2018) and is ready to deliver legal possession as ordered by the Hon'ble Permanent Lok Adalat, Mohali. But in case you fail to make said payment then 'TDI Infratech Limited' will left with will be liable to pay interest @21% on the due amount till realization and costs of litigation or in the alternative your allotment can also be cancelled and the entire money paid by you will be f The petitioner, however, of the floor without conveying 5. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 6. The petition residential area Agreement dated 03.08.2013, the possession was period of thirty before the Lok Adalat the impugned award dated 06.10.2017. The 2019 -5- allotted a floor measuring 164.22 square yard it is not a valid certificate of the allotted Learned counsel for the respondents submits that in compliance of the directions issued by the Lok Adalat issued a letter dated 17.03.2018, Annexure that he can take possession of the floor holding charges which become due in terms of the as under: 3. That ‘TDI Infratech Limited' thus has become receive a sum of Rs.20,48,374/ charges amounting to Rs.6,25,194/ to 17.03.2018) and is ready to deliver legal possession as ordered by the Hon'ble Permanent Lok Adalat, Mohali. But in case you fail to make said payment then 'TDI Infratech Limited' will left with no option but to take legal recourse and in that event you will be liable to pay interest @21% on the due amount till realization and costs of litigation or in the alternative your allotment can also be cancelled and the entire money paid by you will be forfeited in favor of ‘TDI Infratech Limited’. , however, has failed to deposit of the floor without conveying any reason to the Company. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been The petitioner was allotted a floor by the residential area, to be developed by it. And in terms of the Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 03.08.2013, the possession was period of thirty-six months. It could not be done the Lok Adalat which partly allowed the petitioner’s application vide the impugned award dated 06.10.2017. The .22 square yards (or 1478 sq. feet). allotted floor. Learned counsel for the respondents - Company, on the contrary, submits that in compliance of the directions issued by the Lok Adalat, the , Annexure R-5, to the petitioner of the floor after paying the arrears of which become due in terms of the order. Relevant para of the TDI Infratech Limited' thus has become entitled to 20,48,374/- including arrears of holding 6,25,194/- (calculated w.e.f. 25.9.2014 to 17.03.2018) and is ready to deliver legal possession as ordered by the Hon'ble Permanent Lok Adalat, Mohali. But in case you fail to make said payment then 'TDI Infratech Limited' will left no option but to take legal recourse and in that event you will be liable to pay interest @21% on the due amount till realization and costs of litigation or in the alternative your allotment can also be cancelled and the entire money paid by you orfeited in favor of ‘TDI Infratech Limited’. to deposit the amount and take possession any reason to the Company. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been was allotted a floor by the Company in the nd in terms of the Floor Buyer’s Agreement dated 03.08.2013, the possession was to be delivered within a six months. It could not be done, and the fact was established the petitioner’s application vide the impugned award dated 06.10.2017. The Company was, accordingly, . , on the contrary, the , to the petitioner after paying the arrears of Relevant para of the entitled to olding (calculated w.e.f. 25.9.2014 to 17.03.2018) and is ready to deliver legal possession as ordered by the Hon'ble Permanent Lok Adalat, Mohali. But in case you fail to make said payment then 'TDI Infratech Limited' will left no option but to take legal recourse and in that event you will be liable to pay interest @21% on the due amount till realization and costs of litigation or in the alternative your allotment can also be cancelled and the entire money paid by you the amount and take possession Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been ompany in the nd in terms of the Floor Buyer’s to be delivered within a established the petitioner’s application vide , AMAN DUA 2026.07.14 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-29568-2019 directed to hand over the possession to him within a period of six months. Accepting the award, the 17.03.2018, and asked him to pay the from 25.09.2014. The petitioner’ same, as the possession ha acceptance. W claim holding charges. It is also a fact that occupation ce to the floor in question was issued by the Estate Officer only on 04.11.2014, and the possession could have been offered Company’s stand, the possession was offered to the petitioner after the award vide letter dated 17.03.2018; therefore, it can claim holding over charges thereafter. It is in line with the stipulation in clause 9 of the Agreement, dated 03.08.2013, that of ₹10 per sq. ft. per month from the date of issue of offer of possession the validity of occupation certificate cannot be accepted, as it remains undisputed that it has been issued by the competent certificate as such is not under challenge 7. In view thereof, the petition is partly allowed by modifying directions as under: 1. possession to certified copy of this order 2. HOUSE charges and as claimed by the respondent. 2019 -6- directed to hand over the possession to him within a period of six months. Accepting the award, the Company offered the possession vide letter dated and asked him to pay the holding charges in terms from 25.09.2014. The petitioner’s contention that he is not liable to pay the same, as the possession had not been delivered to him by that time, merits Without offering possession, the C claim holding charges. It is also a fact that occupation ce to the floor in question was issued by the Estate Officer only on 04.11.2014, and the possession could have been offered ompany’s stand, the possession was offered to the petitioner after the award vide letter dated 17.03.2018; therefore, it can claim holding over charges It is in line with the stipulation in clause 9 of the Agreement, dated , that ‘the allottee would be liable to pay holding charge at the rate per sq. ft. per month if he fails to take possession within thirty days from the date of issue of offer of possession’. validity of occupation certificate cannot be accepted, as it remains undisputed that it has been issued by the competent certificate as such is not under challenge. In view thereof, the petition is partly allowed by modifying rections as under: 1. That the respondents are directed to deliver legal possession to the petitioner within two weeks of certified copy of this order. 2. The petitioner is not liable to pay HOUSE charges and ₹20,000 as IFMS charges to the respondents as claimed by the respondent. directed to hand over the possession to him within a period of six months. ompany offered the possession vide letter dated holding charges in terms of the award s contention that he is not liable to pay the not been delivered to him by that time, merits Company cannot be permitted to claim holding charges. It is also a fact that occupation certificate with respect to the floor in question was issued by the Estate Officer only on 04.11.2014, and the possession could have been offered prior thereto. As per the ompany’s stand, the possession was offered to the petitioner after the award vide letter dated 17.03.2018; therefore, it can claim holding over charges only It is in line with the stipulation in clause 9 of the Agreement, dated would be liable to pay holding charge at the rate f he fails to take possession within thirty days . Further, the objection taken to validity of occupation certificate cannot be accepted, as it remains undisputed that it has been issued by the competent authority. And the In view thereof, the petition is partly allowed by modifying the are directed to deliver legal the petitioner within two weeks of receiving a The petitioner is not liable to pay ₹50,000 as CLUB as IFMS charges to the respondents directed to hand over the possession to him within a period of six months. ompany offered the possession vide letter dated of the award s contention that he is not liable to pay the not been delivered to him by that time, merits ompany cannot be permitted to rtificate with respect to the floor in question was issued by the Estate Officer only on 04.11.2014, As per the ompany’s stand, the possession was offered to the petitioner after the award only It is in line with the stipulation in clause 9 of the Agreement, dated would be liable to pay holding charge at the rate f he fails to take possession within thirty days he objection taken to validity of occupation certificate cannot be accepted, as it remains . And the the are directed to deliver legal receiving a 50,000 as CLUB as IFMS charges to the respondents AMAN DUA 2026.07.14 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-29568-2019 3. charges from the petitioner if he fails thirty days from the date of issue of offer of possession. 4. tax. However, all other claims made in the petitioner are hereby refused b 02.07.2026 Ad 2019 -7- 3. That the respondents are liable to claim holding over charges from the petitioner if he fails thirty days from the date of issue of offer of possession. 4. The petitioner is also not liable to pay interest on service tax. However, all other claims made in the petitioner are hereby refused being not tenable. Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable That the respondents are liable to claim holding over charges from the petitioner if he fails to take possession within thirty days from the date of issue of offer of possession. e petitioner is also not liable to pay interest on service tax. However, all other claims made in the petition by the ing not tenable. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No That the respondents are liable to claim holding over take possession within e petitioner is also not liable to pay interest on service petition by the ) AMAN DUA 2026.07.14 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document