Quick Summary: Ashutosh Infra and Pebble Downtown are in a legal fight over a commercial project in Faridabad. The case revolves around disagreements about lease agreements and the size of certain areas in the building. The court has chosen a neutral third party to help solve the issues.
Who's Who:
- Petitioner: M/S Ashutosh Infra Private Limited
- Respondent: M/S Pebble Downtown India (P.) Ltd & Others
Location:
- The land in question is in Faridabad, Haryana.
Key Dates:
- Collaboration Agreement: June 25, 2015
- Settlement Agreement: December 31, 2021
- Consent Award: April 8, 2022
- Court Decision Date: December 4, 2025
Collaboration Agreement:
Ashutosh Infra and Pebble Downtown agreed to develop a commercial project. Ashutosh Infra owned the land, and Pebble Downtown was supposed to develop it.
Carpet Area Dispute:
- Ashutosh Infra claims that the size of the 4th and 5th floors was reported incorrectly. They found the actual size to be 2195 sq. mts., not 1398.271 sq. mts. as initially stated.
Lease Deeds Issue:
- Pebble Downtown supposedly created lease agreements with past dates for 16 units, which Ashutosh Infra argues were done after their right to lease had ended.
Arbitration Demand:
- Ashutosh Infra asked for arbitration due to unresolved arguments over the lease agreements and floor sizes. Pebble Downtown disagreed, saying everything was already settled.
Court's Decision:
- Judge Jyoti Singh appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes, saying that questions like whether the issues have already been settled and if they can be arbitrated are for the arbitrator to decide.
Involvement of Other Parties:
- Respondents 2 to 4, who did not sign the original agreements, were initially part of the petition but were removed. Their involvement will be decided during arbitration.
Interim Orders:
- The court maintained a temporary order stopping Pebble Downtown from dealing with Ashutosh Infra's share in the mall until the arbitrator takes over.
Next Steps:
- The appointed arbitrator, Justice Mukta Gupta, will handle the arbitration proceedings, with the temporary orders in place until further decisions.
This case highlights the complexities of commercial agreements and the importance of clear arbitration clauses. The arbitration will address the main disputes and potentially influence similar cases in the future.
