BEFORE THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL OF HON’BLE JUSTICE V.

JAGANNATHAN (RETD.)

(ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE, BENGALURU)

A.C. No.134/2022

Between:

H.L NAGARAJ
Claimant
And:

SIDDHSHEKA DEVELOPERS LLP

Respondent

AFFIDAVIT IN LIEU OF EXAMINATION-IN-CHIEF OF RW-1

(SHAILESH KUMAR S. HARAN)

Name Shailesh Kumar S. Haran

Son of Late Sankal Chand Haran

Aged 52 years

Occupation Partner of Siddhshekha Developers LLP

Address at No.1/1, N.V. House, 1st Floor,

H. Siddaiah Road, Bengaluru - 560 002

I, Shailesh Kumar S. Haran, Son of Late Sankal Chand Haran, aged about 52
years, Partner of Siddhshekha Developers LLP, No.1/1, N.V. House, 1st Floor, H.
Siddaiah Road, Bengaluru - 560 002, do solemnly state on oath as follows:

1. I state that I am one of the Partners of the Respondent firm in the above matter
and I am aware of the facts of the case and am able to depose thereto.
 Page 2

2. I state that for the sake of convenience and brevity the averments made in the
Statement of Objections and the Counter Claim filed by the Respondent may be read as
part and parcel of this affidavit.

3. Not admitting the Claimant’s case in any manner whatsoever, the alleged claim
of the Claimant/Petitioner is barred by limitation; in so far that the Claimant/Petitioner
cannot claim for alleged damages; for period beyond three years prior to filing of the
instant suit. That being the case, the Claimant’s petition for alleged damages for the period
beyond limitation of three years, is liable to be dismissed.

4. That Claimant being the absolute owner of property bearing Municipal No.98,
Bull Temple Road, Basavangudi, Bengaluru, being the Claim Schedule Property, given
the same as a security towards the loan of Rs.22 Crores loan availed by RGV Telecom
Pvt Ltd., from IDBI Bank Limited, by depositing the title deeds and documents of the
Claim Schedule Property in terms of an Equitable Mortgage by Deposit of Title Deeds
dated 29.01.2010, registered as Doc.No.BSG-1-02086-2009-10, stored in CD No.BSGD
125, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Basavangudi, Bengaluru. As on 22.10.2012 the
Claimant was required to pay a total balance sum of Rs.14 Crores to the IDBI Bank.

5. That apart the Claimant had also availed a sum of Rs.7.95 Crores from M/s.
Sheriff Constructions (Ziaulla Sheriff) to discharge the IDBI Bank loan, with an
understanding that the said sums would be refunded on or before 27.10.2012. As the
Claimant failed to discharge the Bank loan and also repay Sheriff Constructions, in order
to discharge the aforesaid loans, Claimant decided to develop the Claim Schedule
Property into a multistoried residential complex and accordingly approached the
Respondent herein offering the Claim Schedule Property for development.
 Page 3

6. Based on the representations, assurances and covenants made by the Claimant,

the Respondent agreed to develop the Schedule Property into a multi-storied residential
complex at its cost on the basis of sharing the built-up area and proportionate share in
land in the Claim Schedule Property. Accordingly, the Claimant and Respondent entered
into a Development Agreement dated 22.10.2012, registered as Document No.BSG-1-
03977-2012-13, stored in CD No.BSGD183, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru and General Power of Attorney dated 22.10.2012 in favour of
Petitioner, registered as Document No.BSG-4-00258-2012-13, stored in CD
No.BSGD183, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. The
essential conditions of the Development Agreement are as follows:

(a) Clause 6 (ii) states that “That except the said loan with IDBI Bank, he
has not created any kind of encumbrance, charge or line over the Schedule
Property and the except the proceedings before DRT Schedule Property is
not the subject matter of any litigation or proceedings before any court of
law or authority and or department”

(b) Clause 1 (f) states that “Till the completion of the construction in all
respect, the owner is not entitled to sell or otherwise encumber his share
of schedule property and the development. However, in the event of owner
intends to sell a fraction of his share, he shall firstly offer the same to the
Developer at market price and if he declines to facilitate the sale at market
price the Owner shall be at liberty to sell his share of construction to any
person/s of his choice subject to terms of this agreement and such
agreement shall be signed by the Developer as Confirming Party. After
completion of the construction the Owner shall be at liberty deal with his
share, by refunding amount received by the Owner as refundable deposit
from the Developer.”

(c) Clause 1 (i) states that “All taxes including but not limited to Income tax
as may be applicable on sale of Development/construction together with
proportionate share of interest in the Schedule property shall be shared
by the Owner and Developer in proportionate to their share of 50% and
50% respectively.”
 Page 4

(d) Clause 4 (b) states that “The Developer has agreed to exploit maximum of
FAR legally permissible and has also agreed to avail the maximum
additional FAR at the Developer’s cost and secure the license and get the
plan sanctioned from the competent authority for the mutual benefit of the
parties”.

(e) Clause 4 (a) in page 11 States that “The Developer shall get the requisite
plans, drawings, designs etc for construction of multi storied complex
prepared as per the building Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations that shall
be in force from time to time and obtain due sanction of the plan/s, license
from BBMP and or any other competent local authority within six months
from this date. If the delay is due to any act of omission or commission on
the part of the Owner or for the reason of clog on the title of the owner,
the same shall be excluded for this purpose. The Owner shall co-operate
fully in this regard by signing all forms, applications, bonds, affidavits and
or any other papers as may be sought for/required by the Developer and
or any authority.”

(f) Clause 4 (c) in page 12 States that “The Developer shall commence the
construction immediately after obtaining the building plans duly approved
in terms of this agreement and complete the construction within 30 months
from the date of obtaining commencement certificate from the plaining
authority, subject to delay that might be caused by unforeseen incidents
like litigation, scarcity of materials, or acts of God. However the Owner
does hereby agree to provide and additional period of six months to the
Developer to complete the project, which the Developer may need due to
any unforeseen factors/developments. Completion of construction in this
regard means virtual completion. Virtual completion means the Owner
share of flats shall be in habitable condition. In the event of delay on the
part of the Developer to complete the construction as above, the
Developer will be liable to pay a sum of Rs.15/- (Rupees fifteen only) per
Sq.ft of saleable super built up area falling to the share of the owner,
However if the delay is beyond 12 months from the stipulated period the
Owner shall be liberty to take over the project and complete the project at
the cost of the Owner deductible from the Developer’s share of
construction.”

(g) Clause 7 states that “PAYMENT OF VAT AND OTHER TAXES: payment
of sales Tax/VAT/Service/ TAX and or any other taxes and levies as may
be applicable in respect of the construction/ development of the residential
 Page 5

complex shall be shared by the Developer and the Owner proportionate

to their respective share of construction.”

(h) Clause 13 (b) states that “If at any stage, any defect is found in the tittle of
the Owner to the Schedule property or if there should be any kind of
objection by any Authority or any tenable objections by any third person
for proceeding with the proposed construction work, the Owner at his cost
shall remove and solve such obstacles shall be excluded for completion of
the project.”

(i) Clause 13 (e) states that “All liabilities of the Owner including but not
limited to mortgage loan of IDBI, with respect to Schedule property shall
be discharged by the Owner. And in the event of failure on the part of the
Owner to discharge his liabilities as above and if the Developer is
compelled to discharge the loan amount or other liabilities of the Owner
with respect to Schedule property, the entire amount so paid by the
Developer shall be adjusted/ Deductible by Developer by reducing the
Owner’s entitlement of 50% of super built up area in the following
manner:

a. If the payment is made prior to the commencement of construction, for

every Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees seventy five lakhs only) paid by the
Developer the total super built up area of the Owner will be reduced
by 1000 Sq. ft (one thousand Sq.ft)

b. If the Developer is compelled to discharge the liability of the Owner,

after the commencement of construction for every Rs. 80,00.000/-
(Rupees eighty lakhs only) paid by the Developer the total super built
up area of the Owner will be reduced by 1000 Sq.ft (one thousand Sq.
ft)

(j) Clause 15 states that “MAINTENANCE AFTER COMPLETION: On

completion of the construction, the Developer and or any company duly
appointed by the Developer shall maintain all the common facilities and
amenities provided by the Developer All charges, costs, levies, expenses
with regard to maintenance shall be shared by the Owner and the
Developer proportionate to their share of construction Irrespective of
actual possession and enjoyment of the construction by the Owner and or
Developer they shall share the cost of maintenance in the manner stated
above. Completion of construction in this regard means the date of
obtaining regular power connection to apartment complex.”
 Page 6

(k) Clause 16 states that “SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT: After obtaining

the sanctioned plan and license, a Supplementary Agreement shall be
executed incorporating the details pertaining to construction
specifications, demarcation/apportionment of divided and undivided
shares in built up and open areas falling to the respective shares of the
parties and details of common/Individual amenities planned. This
supplementary agreement shall be executed and registered within 15
(fifteen) days of the date of Developer obtaining the building plan duty
approved from the competent authority.”

7. As certain terms and conditions were not incorporated in the aforesaid

Development Agreement, dated 22.10.2012, the parties entered into a Supplementary
Agreement dated 22.10.2012 as a part and parcel of the Development Agreement. By
virtue of the Development Agreement and Supplementary Agreement, both dated
22.10.2012, the Respondent agreed to pay a sum of Rs.25 Crores to the Claimant, out of
the said sums Rs.10 Crores shall become non-refundable and Rs.15 Crores shall be
refundable by the Claimant to the Petitioner herein in the following manner, as per Clause
2 of the Supplementary Agreement dated 22.10.2012:

(a) Rs.7.50 Crores within one year from the date of payment of last installment
of IDBI Bank by the Developer.

or

On completion of the construction, whichever is earlier.

(b) Rs.7.50 Crores within 6 weeks from the date of Developer obtaining the
completion certificate.

8. That apart in terms of Clause 3 of the Supplementary Agreement dated

22.10.2012, it was agreed between the parties that the pro-rata charges, deposits and other
charges as contemplated in clause 6 of the Development agreement, with respect to the
flats that will be sold by the Claimant shall be paid at the rate of Rs.250/- per square feet.
 Page 7

9. That in compliance of aforesaid agreements, the Respondent had paid to the

Claimant a sum of Rs.19,38,00,000/- from 20.10.2012 to 25.02.2013, despite receipt of
said sums, the Claimant / Petitioner did not clear the entire Loan Amount with IDBI Bank
and did not get the possession of the Schedule Property and did not get the title deeds
released. That being the case, the Respondent was forced to clear the outstanding Loan
Amount directly with IDBI Bank. Accordingly, the Respondent paid further sums of
Rs.5,68,00,000/- to the IDBI Bank between 28.02.2013 to 03.07.2013 and cleared the
loan on behalf of the Claimant. In between the Claimant on 04.04.2013 and 05.04.2013
received a total sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from the Respondent. It is pertinent to mention
here that due to the Claimant not clearing the loan in time, the IDBI Bank, charged
additional interest on the outstanding dues and the Claimant was required to pay an
additional sum of Rs.1,06,00,000/- towards additional interest. Thus, in all the
Respondent paid a sum of Rs.26,06,00,000/- to and in favour of Claimant as against
Rs.25,00,00,000/- of security deposit. That being the case allegations of the
Claimant/Petitioner that the Respondent: (i) failed to pay the amounts as agreed, (ii) did
not have funds to pay the refundable and non-refundable deposit and (iii) didn’t have
funds to start construction; are all specifically denied as False in toto and the Petitioner is
put to the strictest proof of the said allegations.

10. Pursuant to the payment of the aforesaid sums, the parties entered into an
Agreement dated 20.07.2013, which states as follows:

(a) Clause 5 states that “Further to the said Supplementary Agreement over and
above the sum of Rs.8,00,00,000/-(Rupees eight crores only) paid under the
said Development Agreement, the Second party /Developer has paid a sum of
Rs.17,00,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen crores only) to the First party/ Owner in
order to discharge said loan amount and also for other legal necessities of the
First Party/Owner, the receipt of which the First Party/Owner does hereby
admit and acknowledge.”
 Page 8

(b) Clause 6 states that “Out of the amount so paid by the Second Party, the First
Party has discharged the entire loan amount and the IDBI Bank has handed
over all the title deeds and documents of the Schedule property deposited with
it, to the First party/Owner.”

(c) Clause 10 states that “On execution of this agreement, the First Party has
handed over the possession of the Schedule Property to the Second Party.
However, the possession of the old existing house in the Schedule Property is
retained by the First Party for removing his belongings and to demolition the
same at his cost. This process will be completed within one month from the
date of sanction of the building plans by BBMP.”

11. Subsequent to the aforesaid Agreement dated 20.07.2013, the IDBI Bank,
executed and registered the “Memorandum confirming release of mortgage by deposit of
title deeds” dated 22.07.2013, in favour of Claimant, registered as Document No.BSG-1-
02467-2013-14, stored in CD No.BSGD214, in the Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, registered on 23.07.2013. The action / conduct of the
Respondent has caused enormous loss to the Respondent, in spite of which the
Respondent has adhered to its terms and conditions of the Joint Development Agreement.
The claim of the Claimant is only with a view to somehow see that the various amounts
paid by the Respondent to the Claimant is not paid.

12. As stated above, it is clear that part possession of the Schedule Property was
handed over to the Respondent by the Claimant only on 20.07.2013 and the remaining
part of the possession over which the old existing house of the Claimant was to be vacated
was agreed to be handed over only at a later date. Thus, in terms of Clause 13 (b) stated
above, the period until 20.07.2013 and the subsequent period until the Claimant
demolished the old existing house is required to be excluded for calculation of time period
for completion of project.

13. It is a matter of record that the Schedule Property was the subject matter in
O.S.No.27119/2012, and the said suit was filed by one M/s Unishire Buildtech LLP
 Page 9

against the Claimant/Petitioner, the Respondent and the partner of the Respondent herein,
on 07.11.2012, before the City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bangalore (CCH 29). The suit
was filed by M/s Unishire Buildtech LLP, seeking, inter-alia, for “a decree of specific
performance of the oral contract reduced to writing vide Joint Development Agreement
dated 22.10.2012” and together with the said suit, the said M/s Unishire Buildtech LLP
had filed an IA under Oder 39 Rule 1 & 2, seeking for ‘an ad interim order restraining the
Defendants, jointly and severally from putting up any construction or from changing the
nature of the suit schedule property”. Subsequently, the said M/s.Unishire Built Tech
(LLP), filed an application for withdrawal, which was allowed by the Hon’ble Court only
on 16.10.2015. The said suit came to be disposed only on 16.10.2015, and therefore as
per Clause 13(b) of the JDA dated 22.10.2012, the time taken by the Claimant/Petitioner
in removing the obstacle/hurdle to the challenge to the title of the Schedule Property, is
to be excluded for calculation for completion of construction. The allegation by the
Claimant/Petitioner that the Respondent herein has colluded with the said M/s Unishire
Buildtech LLP with an intent to delay the project, is categorically denied as false, baseless
and frivolous. The allegations made by the Claimant against the Respondent in respect of
M/s Unishire Buildtech LLP is categorically denied as false in toto. The
Claimant/Petitioner is making malicious allegations without any evidence, and the
Claimant/Petitioner is put to the strictest proof of the allegations made therein.

14. Though there was a cloud over the title to the Schedule Property during the
pendency of the O.S.No.27119/2012, the Respondent herein, after having taken actual
and physical possession of portion of the Schedule Property vide Agreement dated
20/07/2013, submitted an application to Bruhat Bangalore Mahangara Palike (BBMP)
for sanction of building plan on 24/10/2013 and obtained the residential building plan
bearing LP No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD (S)0381/2013-14 dated 14.02.2014 from the Joint
Director (Town Planning-South) BBMP, Bengaluru.
 Page 10

15. After taking actual physical possession on 20.07.2013, when the Respondent got
the soil testing done, huge rocks were found under the surface of the Schedule Property,
and that being the case the Respondent had to engage the services of consultants and
experts for ascertaining the method to be employed for removal of the huge rocks that
were found. The Geotechnical Investigation Report dated 13.11.2013 states the same in
detail and the photographs taken during the excavation and putting up the retaining wall
evidences the same.

16. After obtaining the sanctioned plan on 14.02.2014, when the Respondent started
with the excavation/rigging/drilling work, the neighbours to the Schedule Property started
raising objections to the construction work undertaken by the Respondent. The
neighbours filed a complaint dated 25.06.2014 and Acknowledgment dated 26.06.2014,
bearing GSC No.PO1367140600298 before the jurisdictional police in relation to the
construction work done by the Respondent. The neighbours also issued a notice dated
13.09.2014 questioning the precautions taken by the Respondent herein during
construction.

17. That the huge hard rock was found at a depth of 6 metres from the surface. On
account of the issues raised by the neighbors, the Respondent could neither use a machine
breaker nor use explosives at the site. The Respondent left with no other option, was
constrained to cut the rock manually and the entire progress of construction was fully
hampered. Since the proposal was for double basement, the design criteria were to build
a single raft foundation connected to the retaining wall all around the plinth area;
however, because the huge rock was of 2 meters height, the cutting had to be done at one
meter below the rock top, and hence the single raft system did not work. That being the
case, the Respondent had to employ diamond rope cutting machine to cut the rock from
below, and also had to put up a tower raft foundation for the same.
 Page 11

18. That because the entire rock cutting process was tedious and time consuming, on
account of manual cutting, the Respondent had put up retaining walls on all sides of the
excavation work. In fact, the Respondent also provided Shotcrete with soil nailing; and
also provided anchors with grouted nails at every 2 meters by using ISMC-150 box
section and ISMC-150 struts, in order to provide support to the earth of the adjacent
properties. The photographs showing the retaining walls, shotcrete and grouted nails put
up by the Respondent on the edges of the Schedule property are produced.

19. All of the above works resulted in additional financial burden and additional
construction time, which the Respondent has borne without raising any sort of claim from
the Claimant/Petitioner. The entire process for excavation and removal of the huge rocks,
was completed only by May 2016.

20. Originally the plan was sanctioned for construction of basement + Ground + four
upper floors. In order to avail the entire basic FAR of 3 and to take the benefit of
permissible additional FAR, the Respondent purchased 7236.83 Square Meters (77897
Square feet) of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) by investing a sum of
Rs.4,60,63,513/-, under the two Sale Deeds dated 07.12.2013 and 14.03.2014.
Simultaneously with the excavation / rock cutting / neighbour issues as narrated
hereinbefore, the Respondent, has obtained the following approvals/ sanctions/ NOC
from various authorities, for construction of the high rise residential complex consisting
of 2 levels of basement, Ground + 22 upper floors (2B+G+22UF):

(i) NOC dated 15.03.2014 issued by BSNL;

(ii) NOC dated 11.04.2014 issued by BESCOM;

(iii) NOC dated 25.09.2014 issued by DGP & DG, Karnataka Fire &
Emergency Services; and

(iv) NOC dated 09.01.2015 issued by Airport Authority of India.

 Page 12

21. The Respondent applied for revised / modified plan on 09.10.2014 and the same
was obtained sanction for the same vide LP No.BBMP/Addl.Dir/JD (S)0381/2013-14
dated 11.01.2016 from the Joint Director (Town Planning-South) BBMP, Bengaluru for
construction of 2 levels of basement, Ground + 22 upper floors in the Schedule property
and proceeded with the construction. It is relevant to note that though the Respondent had
filed the application as on 09.10.2014, due to change in TDR Loading rules and prevailing
confusion with regard to the same the sanctioning took longer than usual, and the plan
was sanctioned on 11.01.2016. It is within the knowledge of the Claimant that there were
frequent changes in the policy and procedure in the matter of TDR loading, and due to
policy changes and amendments to Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1961, in
the year 2015, many builders were not successful in loading the TDR purchased by them
prior to 2015 resulting in stoppage of the sanction of modified plan by the BBMP.

22. In terms of Clause 16 of the Development Agreement, the Respondent after

obtaining the plan approval, forwarded a draft Sharing Agreement to Claimant vide email
dated 04.07.2016, requesting him to execute and complete his part of the obligation. The
same was followed by a reminder mail dated 24.08.2016. Instead of executing/signing
the Sharing Agreement in terms of the Development Agreement, the Claimant sent a reply
email on 26.08.2016 refusing to execute the Supplementary/ Sharing Agreement unless
the commercial terms of the DA are revisited all over again. In response, the Respondent
issued letter dated 15.09.2016 sent through/attached to an Email dated 15.09.2016. The
Respondent postponed the signing of the Sharing Agreement on one pretext or the other,
constraining the Respondent to invoke Arbitration clause vide Legal Notice dated
17.12.2016, issued to the Claimant. It is under the aforesaid facts and circumstances that
the Respondent was forced to file the earlier Claim Petition before the very same Arbitral
Tribunal of Hon’ble Justice Mr. V. Jagannathan (Retd.). The said Claim Petition ended
in compromise resulting in signing of the Sharing Agreement dated 01.07.2017. Hence
 Page 13

the period from 04.07.2016 to 01.07.2017 is required to be excluded for computation of

time, on account of the Claimant’s violation of Clause 4 (d) (d) of the Development
Agreement dated 22.10.2012. It is submitted that the Respondent had put up construction
of the 2 basements + Ground floor, upto plinth area, and obtained the Commencement
Certificate on 19.01.2017. However, claimant created obstacles/hurdles by not signing
the Sharing Agreement. As can be seen from above, in view of the actions of the
Claimant, the cost of the project has increased, there is delay in completion of the project.
The Respondent herein had to get clear and marketable title over the property in question,
which was the obligation of the Claimant being the land owner, has now sought to make
unjust and illegal claim, only after completion of the project, only with a view to make
unjust gain.

23. It is pertinent to reiterate herein that in terms of Clause 4 (c) (c) of the
Development Agreement dated 22.10.2012, the Respondent has undertaken to

“…complete the construction within 30 months from the date of obtaining

commencement certificate, subject to delays caused by unforeseen incidents like
litigation, scarcity of materials, or acts of God…” (emphasis supplied).

24. Under the same clause, an additional period of 6 months grace is also reserved for
the Respondent to complete the construction. That being the case, the allegation that the
Respondent agreed to complete construction in all aspects within 30 from the date of
Development Agreement dated 22.10.2012 is false, baseless and contrary to the record.
The further allegation that the Respondent had agreed to handover the
Claimant/Petitioner’s share of flats within 22.04.2016, is also emphatically denied as utter
falsehood, and the Claimant / Petitioner is put to the strictest proof of the same.

25. The allegations that the construction in the Schedule Property is not complete in
terms of the Development Agreement is categorically denied as false and the Claimant /
Petitioner is trying to mislead this Hon’ble Court be producing old photographs that were
 Page 14

clicked during construction. The Respondent has produced the photographs showing the
true and correct state of construction as on the filing of Claim Petition. The same
establishes that the Claimant / Petitioner’s reduced share of flats are ready in a habitable
condition. Hence, the allegations of alleged incomplete works are wholly unsustainable,
and the Claimant / Petitioner is put to the strictest proof of the same.

26. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondent obtained the Commencement
Certificate on 19.01.2017 and within a period of 33 months completed the construction
of entire building in all terms and applied for occupancy certificate on 15.10.2019, which
is much before the completion of 6 months of grace period.

27. As the COVID-19 struck the world and there was nationwide lockdown, the
BBMP could inspect the apartment building on 08.10.2020 and thereafter the
Commissioner of BBMP issued approval for issuance of occupancy certificate on
21.10.2020 and thereafter the occupancy certificate could be issued by the BBMP on
05.12.2020. It is pertinent to mention here that the BBMP has categorically in the
Occupancy Certificate observed that there is deviation in construction with reference to
the sanctioned plan which is within the limits of regularization as per Bye – Laws and
that as per the Hon’ble High Court Interim order dated 25.11.2020, passed in WP
No.13481/2020, the Respondent paid a sum of Rs.7,49,000/- and the deviations effected
in the building are condoned and regularized. Accordingly, the occupancy certificate is
issued. Therefore, the period from 23.03.2020 onwards until issuance of occupancy on
05.12.2020 is required to be excluded for calculation of period of construction.

28. Nevertheless, the Claimant/Petitioner with an intention to harass, coerce and

thwart the legal claims of the Respondent by hook or crook, filed a frivolous and
malicious Writ Petition bearing W.P.No.14764/2021 (LB-BMP) before the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, alleging that the Respondent colluded with BBMP for
obtaining the Occupancy Certificate, which nothing but false, baseless and reeks
 Page 15

allegations made with malafide intention by the Claimant / Petitioner. The further
allegation that the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has observed that the Occupancy
Certificate is contrary to established Bye Laws is utter falsehood and the Petitioner is put
to the strictest proof of the same. On the contrary the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the
said Writ Petition. The aforesaid actions of the Claimant / Petitioner in instituting
malicious prosecutions and creating unnecessary hurdles / obstacles in the development
work, is a clear violation of Clause 4 (d) (d) of the Development Agreement dated
22.10.2012, and the Claimant / Petitioner is required to make good the expenses incurred
by the expenses and damages incurred by the Respondent on account of such violations.

29. In fact, immediately upon receipt of Occupancy Certificate, the Claimant

executed the Sale Deed dated 25.01.2021, in favour of Smt. Rajul Devi in respect of flat
No.1102, situated at the 11th floor of the apartment complex constructed on the claim
schedule property representing the following in the Clause 7 (n) & (o), which is absolutely
contrary to the allegatiosn in the WP No.14764/2021:

(a) Clause 7 (n) as per the sale deed states that “The Purchaser, have verified
the title deeds of the “A” schedule property and satisfied the marketable
title of the Vendors, in regard to “A” schedule property and the absolute
right of the Vendor to dispose of the “B” and “C” schedule portion s,
Purchaser have inspected and satisfied as to completion of all works,
correctness of measurements, quality of construction, amenities/services
provided, electrification, plumbing, finishing of common areas and
facilities to the Apartment Building and its fitness for occupation, the
Purchaser have purchased the “B” and “c” schedule portions.”

(b) Clause 7 (o) as per the sale deed states that “The Purchaser hereby
declare/s and confirm/s that they have no claims against the Vendor in
relation to “A” Schedule and “C” Schedule Apartment and/or the
development in “SIDDH SHEKHA MARQUIS” whatsoever and hereby
confirm/s that the Vendor have complied with all their obligations towards
the Purchaser under the Agreement to Sell, to the satisfaction of the
Purchaser and hereby fully and completely discharge the Vendor from all
their obligations under the said Agreement to Sell entered into with the
 Page 16

Purchaser and further agree/s to promptly comply with and adhere to the
terms of this sale deed while enjoying the “B” Schedule Property and the
“C” Schedule Apartment.”

30. Despite the above, the Claimant has upon dismissal of WP No.14764/2021 on
22.10.2021, filed a suit in OS No. 26257/2022 against the Respondent and BBMP yet
again challenging the Occupancy Certificate before the City Civil Court, Mayo Hall,
Bengaluru and the same is pending consideration. The acts of the Claimant are totally
contrary and arm twisting to suit the needs of the Claimant to justify his false claims.

31. The averments made in the evidence affidavit of the Claimant which are mostly
without any support of pleadings to that effect cannot be look into, nevertheless, the claim
at para 21 that the Claimant is paying penalty as per the agreement to Mrs. Rajul Devi is
not within the knowledge of the Respondent and that the Respondent is not a party to
such an Agreement. In any event the same is false, frivolous and contrary to the sale deed
and clause 7 (n) and (o) extracted herein above and hence all the allegations pertaining to
the said sale deed and delay and non-completion is hereby denied.

32. In fact, as per Clause 1(f) of the Development Agreement, the

Claimant/Petitioner/Owner is specifically disentitled from selling or otherwise
encumbering his share of flats in the Schedule Property till completion of the
construction. In the same clause it is further provided that in the even the
Claimant/Petitioner/Owner intends to sell a fraction of his share, he shall firstly offer the
same to the Respondent/Developer at the market price and only if the
Respondent/Developer declines to facilitate the same, the Claimant/Petitioner/Owner
shall be at liberty to sell his share to any person. The said clause further provides that

“… After completion of the construction the Owner shall be at liberty deal with
his share, by refunding amount received by the Owner as refundable deposit from
the Developer” (emphasis supplied).
 Page 17

33. However, it is an admitted fact that the Claimant/Petitioner/Owner did not follow
the contractual mandate as aforementioned. It is a matter of record that without the
consent of the Respondent/Developer and without refunding the Refundable Security
Deposit to the Respondent/Developer, the Claimant/Petitioner/Owner has sold the flat
bearing No.1102, for valuable consideration of Rs.4,80,60,000/- (Rupees Four Crores
Eighty Lakhs and Sixty Thousand only) vide Absolute Sale Deed dated 25.01.2021,
registered as Document No.BSG-1-06333-2020-21 in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Basavanagudi.

34. In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the
Claimant/Petitioner had entry into the Schedule Property and had, contrary to the agreed
terms, already alienated a flat from his share, even prior to filing of the aforesaid
A.A.No.25003/2021. That the Claimant/Petitioner with an oblique intent to illegally
enrich himself at the cost of the Respondent, has been continuously seeking to sell his
share of the flats without adhering to the agreed terms of the DA and Supplementary
Agreement dated 22.10.2012.

35. The Claimant/Petitioner was not entitled to sell more than his reduced share of
SBA, and hence the Claimant/Respondent vide the Joint Memo, in recognition of the
Respondent’s charge over his share of SBA, has undertaken not to alienate 9 flats out of
his share of flats under the Sharing Agreement.

36. It is false to allege that the Respondent tried to block the entry of the
Claimant/Petitioner into the Schedule property and the Claimant/Petitioner is put to the
strictest proof of the same. It is submitted that unless the Claimant/Petitioner was
permitted to enter/inspect the Schedule Property he could not have obtained the
photographs that were filed in the said A.A.No.25003/2021, and also the
Claimant/Petitioner could not have made the allegations regarding the alleged incomplete
works unless he had entre/access to inspect the Schedule Property. That being the case, it
 Page 18

is manifestly clear that the Claimant/Petitioner has filed the said A.A.No.25003/2021
with intention to harass and cause trauma to the Respondent.

37. That upon receipt of Occupancy Certificate dated 05.12.2020, the Respondent
issued a letter dated 22.12.2020 to the Claimant/Petitioner, wherein the Respondent has
adjusted the non-payment of Rs.8,56,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores Fifty Six Lakhs only)
by reducing the Claimant/Petitioner’s share of Super Built-up Area as per Clause 13 (e)
(a) of the Development Agreement dated 22.10.2012, from 66,988 Sq Ft. to 55,574.66
Sq. feet.

38. Further, the Claimant / Petitioner was also called upon the Claimant / Petitioner
to make payment of the balance refundable deposit under Clause 2 (b) at Page 4 of the
Supplementary Agreement dated 22.10.2012, as well as make payment of other statutory
charges, pro rata charges and other expenses including VAT / GST / Service tax and other
taxes / levies, totally amounting to Rs.11,12,90,253/-. In reply, the Claimant / Petitioner
issued a letter dated 17.01.2021, malafidely refusing to make payment by making various
false and frivolous allegations; and the Claimant / Petitioner has also made untenable
demands of exorbitant and imaginary damages.

39. The allegation that the Petitioner on several occasions offered to pay/return
Rs.7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Fifty Lakhs only) to the Respondent is hereby
categorically denied as False in Toto, and the Petitioner is put to the strictest proof of the
same. It is submitted that despite repeated requests, the Claimant/Petitioner failed to make
payment as required. In fact, vide Email dated 17/09/2017, the Claimant/Petitioner
himself has stated that he needs time to arrange for funds and he undertook to make
payment of Rs.7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores Fifty Lakhs only) by “28th of Oct
2017 only”. However, the Claimant/Petitioner has not made payment of the same till date
and that being the case, the Claimant/Petitioner without making timely payment as
required, cannot now seek to shift the blame on the Respondent without any basis. That
 Page 19

being the case, the allegation that the Respondent with intention to cause loss or get unjust
enrichment is categorically denied as False. The Respondent is legally entitled to the
Claimant/Petitioner’s share of Super Built up Area, as agreed under Clause 13(e)(a) of
the Development Agreement dated 22.10.2012.

40. It is submitted that the Respondent has paid the refundable security deposit of
Rs.15,00,00,000/- to the Claimant/Petitioner and towards his Loan account at IDBI Bank
plus non refundable deposit of Rs.10,00,00,000/- for his personal needs. The said amount
is paid prior to commencement of construction. It is submitted that the Respondent has
paid an additional sum of Rs.1,06,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs only), towards
discharging the Claimant/Petitioner’s loan account at IDBI Bank. The said amount is also
paid prior to commencement of construction.

41. It is submitted that the Claimant/Petitioner has till date did not repay the
refundable security deposit of Rs.15,00,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Crores only) and has
also not repaid the sum of Rs.1,06,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Six Lakhs only) to the
Respondent till date. Therefore, in view of Clause 13(e)(a) of Development Agreement
dated 22.10.2012, read with Clause 2 of the Supplementary Agreement dated 22.10.2012,
the Claimant/Petitioner’s share of Super Built-up Area is liable for reduction in favour of
the Respondent, at the rate of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred only)
per Square Feet of SBA. Accordingly, the Respondent is entitled to 21,413 sqft of SBA
out of the Claimant/Petitioner’s share of SBA as per the following calculation:

Payment made by Respondent Rs.16,06,00,000/-

Price per square feet as per Clause 13(e)(a) divided by Rs.7500/-

(payment prior to commencement of
construction)

Area of SBA to be reduced 21,413.33 square feet

 Page 20

42. That on account of the Claimant / Petitioner’s greed and unwillingness to adhere
to the intent of the multiple agreements executed, the Respondent was constrained to issue
the Letter dated 13.02.2021, intimating the Claimant / Petitioner that on account of his
failure to make payment of the refundable deposit and other statutory charges / taxes /
levies / expenses; the Claimant / Petitioner’s entitled share of Super Built up Area in the
project, as per the terms of the Development Agreement, stood reduced to 41,663.38
Square feet. The Claimant / Petitioner was also called upon to execute appropriate
agreement/s and informed that only thereafter, the Claimant / Petitioner will be entitled
to sell his share of apartments. That the Claimant / Petitioner issued another untenable
and baseless letter dated 03.03.2021 to the Respondent, enhancing the baseless and mala
fide demands made earlier, instead of executing the revised Agreement/s.

43. That the Claimant had sold Unit No.1102 on 25.01.2021 and Unit No.901 was
agreed to be sold by Claimant in terms of agreement to sell dated 29.12.2021. That from
time to time and as per the interim orders dated 06.10.2022 and 17.10.2022, the Claimant
paid to the Respondent a sum of Rs.1,07,09,000/- towards pro-rata charges,
Rs.10,00,000/- towards club house membership charges for Unit Nos.1102 and 901, and
Rs.1,65,65,000/- has been deposited with this Hon’ble Tribunal towards the GST
payment, payable by the Claimant to the Respondent. After adjusting all the sums that
are received by the Respondent, the Claimant/Petitioner, is required to make balance
payment of the following items:

Sl. Description Amount

No. (in Rupees)
1. Deposits/Pro-rata charges 250 per square feet

2. VAT/GST/Taxes On Actuals

3. Electricity Charges of Claimant’s Flats from On Actuals

February, 2022 till date of payment
 Page 21

4. Maintenance Charges from January, 2022 till On Actuals

date of payment

All these charges are payable along with applicable GST / taxes by the claimant.
The claimant is also liable to pay interest on the delayed period at the rate 18% per annum
on all the claims. It is pertinent to mention here that all the aforesaid sums were payable
from their respective due dates, since the Claimant failed to pay the same, he is liable to
pay interest on the same as claimed by the Respondent from the respective date of default,
until date of payment. That during the pendency of the present claim as per the interim
orders passed by this Hon’ble Tribunal on 17.10.2022, the Respondent handed over
possession of 8 flats to the Claimant bearing Unit Nos.501, 502, 902, 1701, 1702, 1801,
1802, 2001-2101.

44. The Owner/Claimant/Petitioner is also required to pay Club membership charges;

per flat basis, which is a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs only) per flat; and
Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) for the penthouse. Cumulatively, the
Owner/Claimant/Petitioner is required to pay Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore only)
towards the Club Membership charges by collecting it from the prospective
buyers/purchasers of his share of flats. Since the Claimant is already paid Rs.10,00,000/-
towards 2 flats sold by him, the Claimant is liable to pay the balance sums of
Rs.90,00,000/-. Similarly, the Owner/Claimant/Petitioner is required to pay charges
towards purchase/installation/erection of Diesel Generator at the rate of Rs.75 per sq. ft.
of SBA. All these charges are payable along with applicable GST / taxes by the claimant.
The claimant is also liable to pay interest on the delayed period at the rate 18% per annum
on all the claims.

45. The Schedule Property has been connected with regular power connection as well,
and the electricity supply bills for the individual flats are produced. It is submitted that
the Respondent has been paying the electricity charges of the share of flats allotted to the
 Page 22

share of the Claimant / Petitioner as well, and hence the Petitioner is required to pay the
same to the Respondent. That from February 2022, the Claimant/Petitioner is required to
pay 100% of electricity charges and maintenance charges towards his share as per the
JDA.

46. It is submitted that the Respondent is incurring expenses per month towards
Security, Electricity of common areas, running of Sewage Treatment Plant, running of
Water Treatment Plant, Lift maintenance, Swimming Pool maintenance, Landscape and
Estate management, Housekeeping, Diesel Generator maintenance, and so also towards
the consumables that are required for all the above maintenance. The average monthly
maintenance expenses/charges is to be calculated at the rate of Rs.5/sq.ft of SBA, and
hence the Claimant/Respondent is liable to pay for his share of SBA, beginning from
February 2022.

47. It is submitted that as per clause “7. Payment of VAT and Other Taxes”, the
Claimant/Petitioner is required to make payment of the GST/VAT/Tax towards his share
of construction. As per the Sharing Agreement dated 01/07/2017, the Owner/Claimant’s
share is 66988 sq. ft., and hence the Claimant/Petitioner is required to pay GST on the
cost of construction of that area, to be determined by the Cost Accountant and/or the GST
Department.

48. In addition to above, the Claimant/Petitioner is required to pay damages for

violating Clause 1(f) of the Development Agreement dated 22.10.2012 which specifically
put a restriction on the Claimant/Petitioner from alienating any of his share of flats,
without refunding the refundable deposit to the Respondent herein.

49. The Claimant/Petitioner is liable to pay damages for violation Clauses 4(d)(d),
19(a), 19(b) of the Development Agreement dated 22.10.2012, which specifically
provided that the Claimant/Petitioner shall extend full cooperation to the Respondent and
 Page 23

that the Claimant/Petitioner undertook not to disturb, interfere or interrupt or do any act
that would result in delay of the work.

50. That the Claimant/Petitioner has continuously caused delay in fulfilling his
obligations, and thereby, as per clause 22 of the Development Agreement dated
22.10.2012, the Claimant/Petitioner is liable to indemnify the Respondent for the
escalation of costs of construction, as well as the expenses incurred on account of the
litigations caused on account of the acts of the Claimant/Petitioner.

51. The allegation that as per RERA Act and RERA Rules, the Respondent is liable
to compensate the Claimant/Petitioner for the alleged delay in completion of construction
is entirely mischievous, baseless and unsustainable as per RERA Act itself. The contents
of the Reply Letter dated 17.01.2021 are a matter of record; however the Respondent
hereby categorically emphatically states that the Claimant/Respondent is not entitled to
any damages under the RERA Act, 2016 and that the alleged claim of not achieving
maximum FAR is also emphatically denied. That the Claimant/Petitioner cannot claim
any damages or payment thereof under the RERA Act, as the Claimant/Petitioner is the
Owner of the Schedule Property, and by virtue of the notification/circular bearing No.
KRERA/circular/03/2019 dated 06.11.2019 (31.10.2019), the Karnataka Real Estate
Regulatory Authority has made it abundantly clear that Land Owners having
Area/Revenue Share in Real Estate Project are to be treated as Promoter (landowner).

52. The allegation that the provisions of RERA Act are applicable in relation to the
Claimant/Respondent is hereby categorically denied as false, baseless and contrary to
Law. It is submitted that the provisions of RERA Act, 2016 are applicable to the
purchasers of a flat and not to the owner. The Owner being a promoter under RERA
Act,2016, cannot seek for unjust enrichment by importing inapplicable laws.
 Page 24

53. The allegation that the Respondent has not achieved the maximum FAR is
misconceived, frivolous and denied as False in toto; and the Claimant/Petitioner is put to
the strictest proof of the said allegation. The Respondent has complied with clause 4(d)
of the Development Agreement and has achieved the maximum possible FAR of 4.256,
in view of the dimensions of the Schedule Property. It is submitted that for the purpose
of obtaining a particular quantum of Floor – Area Ratio (FAR), the authorities take into
consideration 3 relevant factors –

(i) Height of the Building;

(ii) Setback Area; and

(iii) Percentage of Open Area.

54. In view of the dimensions of the Schedule Property, the Respondent could not
have put up any additional construction/floors in the Schedule Property, as the same
would then require higher setback and higher percentage of open area, which would in
turn reduce the area available for putting up construction. It is submitted that there is no
cause or reason whatsoever for the Respondent to not maximize the construction, as the
same would derive benefit to the Respondent. Though the permissible basic FAR is 3, the
Respondent purchased additional TDR for additional FAR. That despite purchasing TDR
as required, the Respondent was unable to put up additional construction/floors, in view
of the Schedule Property dimensions read together with the applicable rules and
regulations, the BBMP did not permit for FAR of 4.8, as the same is maximum FAR
achieved as per the BBMP rules.

55. That being the case, the allegation that the Respondent was negligent in obtaining
plan sanction is entirely false and baseless. Consequently, the alleged calculation of
alleged loss on account of alleged loss of FAR, is denied is misconceived, speculative
and imaginary. The said calculation is a clear indication of the Claimant/Petitioner’s
 Page 25

greed and hence, the alleged heavy loss of Rs.10,05,48,000/- is speculative, untenable
and is contrary to relevant factors and ground realities.

56. It is also imperative to mention here that, in terms of Sharing Agreement dated
01.07.2017 the Claimant is entitled for Super Built Up Area of 66988 square feet and
Undivided Share of 13077 square feet. While the Undivided Share of 13077 square feet
is multiplied with 4.8 FAR then the achievable Super Built Up Area is 62770 square feet.
Thus, the Claimant has been benefited by 4218 square feet (66988 less 62770) in the total
saleable area fallen to his share as against his calculation based on 4.8 FAR. Thus, the
claim of the Claimant that less FAR achieved and loss of 7556 square feet on the basis of
4.8 FAR is ill-founded and not justifiable. No oversight or mistake of whatsoever has
occurred from the end of Respondent as falsely alleged by the Claimant.

57. The contents of the Legal Notice dated 23.06.2021 are a matter of record;
however, as explained in detail hereinbefore, the contents and demands of the said notice
are malicious, imaginary and untenable in the eyes of Law. The Claimant/Petitioner has
not suffered any loss whatsoever and is make bland and baseless allegation with the
oblique motive to illegally enrich at the cost of the Respondent. The Claimant/Petitioner
is not entitled to the alleged sum of Rs.40,60,66,400/- from the Respondent and hence,
the Respondent is not liable to handover the alleged 33,839 Square feet of SBA to the
Claimant/Petitioner.

58. That being the case, the calculation of alleged ‘delay penalty @ 10 % p.a.’ on the
alleged fair market value of Rs.12,000/-, computed on the alleged 66988 SBA of
Claimant/Petitioner’s share, amounting to Rs.8,03,85,600/- per annum is hereby
categorically denied as False, frivolous and contrary to applicable Laws. The
Claimant/Petitioner is not entitled to any of the alleged sums, and the Claimant/Petitioner
is attempting to mislead this Hon’ble Court to illegally enrich himself and to escape the
contractual obligations/liabilities.
 Page 26

59. The allegation that the Respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.47,46,17,454/- to
the Claimant/Petitioner is hereby categorically denied. The calculation provided therein
is baseless and has no sanctity in Law and is contrary to the facts and circumstances of
the instant case.

60. The Respondent has not caused any delay in the construction and the Respondent
has diligently done all such things as are necessary for completing the construction in a
timely manner. The Development Agreement dated 22.10.2012 stipulates that the
Respondent is required to complete construction within 30 months of issuance of
Commencement Certificate. The commencement certificate was issued on 19.01.2017
and Completion Certificate was issued by the Architects & Engineers of BBMP on
10.10.2019 stating that the building was completed by the Respondent on 25.09.2019. In
fact, the Respondent applied for Occupancy Certificate on 15.10.2019 and the BBMP
issued the Occupancy Certificate on 05.12.2020. Therefore, there is no delay whatsoever
committed by the Respondent in putting up the construction over the Schedule Property,
and the construction, as narrated hereinbefore, is complete as per the terms of the
Development Agreement.

61. The Claimant/Petitioner is making speculative, imaginary and untenable claims

of alleged losses that he has never incurred or suffered. A perusal of the table establishes
that the alleged losses are manifestly mischievous and motived, having no basis
whatsoever either under Law or under the agreed terms of the Development Agreement
and Supplementary Agreement dated 22.10.2012. The Claimant/Petitioner is indulging
in chance litigation to deprive the legitimate claims of the Respondent and to make
wrongful gain at the cost of the Respondent.
 Page 27

62. It is submitted that at the most, the Claimant/Petitioner can seek for damages for
alleged delay as provided under Clause 4(c)(c) of the Development Agreement dated
22.10.2012, the relevant portion of which is extracted for ready reference:

“…In the event of delay on the part of the Developer to complete the
construction as above, the Developer will be liable to pay a sum of Rs.15/-
(Rupees fifteen only) per Sq.ft. of saleable super built up area falling to the
share of the Owner. However, if the delay is beyond 12 months from the
stipulated period, the Owner shall be at liberty to take over the project and
complete the project at the cost of the Owner deductible from the
Developer’s share of construction.”

63. It is submitted that by virtue of signing of the Sharing Agreement dated

01.07.2017, the Claimant/Petitioner has consented to the Respondent continuing with the
construction/development of the Schedule Property, despite the alleged delay. Therefore,
the Claimant/Petitioner is estopped in Law from alleging delay; more so when the alleged
delay is caused, inter-alia, on account of challenge to the title of the Claimant/Respondent,
on account of litigations, on account of acts of God, and on account of the
Claimant/Respondent continuously creating hurdles and obstacles, inter-alia, by not
signing the Sharing Agreement, challenging the Occupancy Certificate. Therefore, the
Respondent is not liable to make any payment whatsoever to the Claimant/Respondent
for any of the alleged claims.

64. The allegation that the Claimant/Petitioner had entered into the Development
Agreement with intention to clear his liability of due payment to the builder of shopping
complex situated at Dubai is patently false and contrary to the record in IR.No.2277/2012.
5The Claimant/Petitioner is attempting to mislead this Hon’ble Court by trying to connect
totally unrelated events.

65. It is relevant to mention herein that the Claimant/Petitioner has always been a
defaulter of loans obtained. In addition to the Loan from IDBI Bank, the
 Page 28

Claimant/Petitioner had also taken money from M.S Sheriff Constructions (Mr. Ziaulla
Sheriff), and had also entered into discussions with M/s Unishire Buildtech. The
Respondent herein, in 2012 and 2013, by making payment of huge sum of
Rs.26,06,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Six Crores Six Lakhs only) to the Claimant/Petitioner
and towards his loan defaults, has helped the Claimant/Petitioner out of his financial
woes. In addition, the Respondent has put up construction of (2B+G+22UP) on the
Schedule Property at his own cost, without obtaining Loan from any financial institute.

66. The Claimant/Petitioner by virtue of the Absolute Sale Deed dated 25.01.2021, as
stated hereinbefore, has violated Clause 1(f) of the Development Agreement dated
22/10/2012, and hence the Claimant/Petitioner cannot seek to hold the Respondent liable
for violating the agreed terms of the Development Agreement. It is false to allege that he
Respondent has failed to complete the construction even today, and the
Claimant/Petitioner is put to the strictest proof of the same.

67. The allegations that the Respondent is trying to defeat the claim of the
Claimant/Petitioner is untenable, misconceived and frivolous. The Claimant/Petitioner
has no tenable claim against the Respondent; and the same is liable to be dismissed and
rejected. The averments pertaining to A.A.No.25058/2022 are a matter of record.

68. In light of the entire averments hereinbefore, the allegations of the

Claimant/Petitioner that he has suffered losses due to the acts of the Respondent, are
wholly unfounded and unbelievable. The Claimant/Respondent has not suffered any
actual quantifiable loss and in fact, the value of the Schedule Property and the
construction put up by the Respondent, has appreciated/increased as of today.

69. The alleged cause of action pales into insignificance as the Claimant/Respondent
has no legitimate claim as against the Respondent. On the other hand, the Respondent has
 Page 29

valid claims and reliefs against the Claimant/Respondent, which are sought by way of a
separate Counter Claim.

70. As the affidavit is being filed in compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble
Tribunal, prior to the cross examination, the Respondent craves leave to file additional
affidavit, if need be, pursuant to the cross examination of the Claimant Witnesses.

WHEREFORE, the Respondent most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal
be pleased to reject and dismiss the Claim Statement filed by the Claimant/Petitioner with
exemplary costs and allow the counter claims of the Respondent, in the interest of justice
and equity.

Bengaluru,
Date: DEPONENT

Identified by:

Advocate
No. of corrections:

VERIFICATION

I, the Deponent herein, state that this is my name and signature and that the
statements made in paragraphs 1 to 70 above, are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, belief, and information.

Bengaluru,
Date: DEPONENT