Providing major relief to the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB), the arbitrator rejected the additional claim of `146 crore made by New Delhi-based private realtor Parsvnath Developers Limited, terming it as “as not maintainable and not justified”.
The matter pertains to the dispute over a housing project, Prideasia in IT Park, which was settled on February 4 when Parsvnath surrendered 123 acres of land after receiving approximately `572 crore from the CHB on the basis of the arbitration judgment of Justice (retired) RV Raveendran.
However, two days after the settlement, Parsvnath moved an application before the arbitrator, claiming that there had been a computational error in the award as per arbitration judgment delivered on January 9.
Following this, the arbitrator issued a notice to the CHB to seek its response.
Parsvnath had claimed that the total amount due to it should be corrected as `713.2 crore, instead of `567.2 crore.
The arbitrator said indeed there is an error of calculation of interest — `217.4 crore wrongly quantified as `71.4 crore — but that could not be corrected now.
“In the normal course, this arithmetical computational error would have called for correction [under the relevant law]. But, certain subsequent events between the date of the award and the date of the application change the position. The award was fully and finally settled and satisfied by the parties under registered deed of revocation executed by both parties,” it adds.
UT senior standing counsel Sanjeev Sharma informed that the submission from the CHB’s side was that there had been negotiations between the parties; and Parsvnath had suggested that both parties accept the award.
It even gave a letter on February 4, 2015, requesting the CHB to take over possession of the project land and “pay all monies due under the award dated January 9, 2015”.
The CHB agreed to the said request and this resulted in full and final settlement in terms of the deed of revocation; and after such accord and satisfaction, the award could not be corrected or modified, added additional government pleader Shekhar Verma.
Both sides contended that the other had deliberately hidden the computation error. Parsvnath said the CHB “was aware of the computational error in calculation of interest, during the negotiations and settlement, but deliberately did not refer to it, with ulterior motives”.
The CHB similarly contends that the firm was aware of the error, before and during negotiations and settlement, “but did not deliberately refer to it with ulterior motives, nor did it take any step for correction, until it achieved the object of receiving the entire payment in terms of the award and until the [Chandigarh Housing Board] executed the deed of revocation giving up its right to challenge the award”.
“When a party confirms that it has no subsisting claim or obligation in respect of the contract against the other party to the contract, he cannot obviously be permitted to seek a correction or amendment to the award which will create a right or claim against the other party or which will create an obligation in the other party. Thus the application for correction is rejected as not maintainable and not justified,” read the order of arbitrator.