Summary: In a case between Vasanji Assaria Mamania and Yadunarayan Mulky Shetty, the court agreed with an earlier decision that denied forcing the completion of a property deal. The court found that Mamania wasn't ready to do his part of the deal, and the property value had gone up a lot, making the original deal unfair.
Mamania and Shetty agreed on a property deal for land in Chembur, Mumbai, at Rs. 11.25 crores. The contract required Shetty to clear tenants and Mamania to pay in stages. The deal was supposed to finish in three months, making time important.
Before signing, Mamania paid Rs. 1.5 crores and later added another Rs. 1.5 crores. But he didn't pay the full amount by the deadline. Shetty claimed he did his part, while Mamania argued that not all conditions were met.
The issue went to arbitration, where the panel sided with Shetty. They found Mamania wasn't ready to complete the deal on time. They noted that the property’s value had gone up a lot, making the original terms unfair. The panel refused to force the sale under the old terms.
"The steep increase in prices is a circumstance which makes it inequitable to grant the relief of specific performance..." — Arbitral Tribunal
Judge Somasekhar Sundaresan looked at the case and agreed with the panel. He emphasized that the panel’s decision was reasonable and not random. The court can't change such decisions unless they are clearly wrong.
The court rejected Mamania’s request to change the arbitration decision. Mamania will get back the money he deposited in court but won't get the property at the old price. This decision shows how important it is to act quickly in property deals and how rising property values can affect agreements.
"The mandate under Section 34 is to respect the finality of the arbitral award..." — Supreme Court in Dyna Technologies
This case is a reminder to stick to contract timelines, especially in real estate where values can change rapidly.
