Chambers of Ishaan Garg
Ch. No. 217, Western Wing, District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari, New Delhi, Delhi 110054
+91 8851742417, +91 8800386163
Title- Tejas Shoor Vs. Godrej Vestamark LLP
Case No- 13 CS DJ 434/20
Corum- Hon’ble Justice Twinkle Wadhwa
Date- 16 May 2023
Counsel for Plaintiff- Sh. Pawan Reley, Sh. Akshay Lodhi, Sh. Ankit Dedha, Ms. Priyanka S. Aneja, Ms. Simran Singh
Counsel for Defendant- Sh. Arav Kapoor and Sh. Komal Gupta
Citation- 2023 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 14
Brief Facts
The defendant applied to Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for the rejection of the plaint because the present court lacks jurisdiction under Section 79 of the RERA Act and there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff. The agreement between the parties stated that disputes should be settled through RERA if mutual settlement fails. The defendant cancelled the allotment via a letter dated 08.03.2022, claiming the subject matter is covered by Section 11(5) of the RERA Act. The plaintiff argued that RERA does not bar the jurisdiction of the present court and that the forfeiture of earnest money was penal and in violation of Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act. They also contended that no agreement to sell was signed, only an application form.
Observations of the Court
The court noted that there is no provision in the RERA Act for an allottee to claim a refund if the cancellation is done by the allottee. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the court is not barred. The clause in the application form that mentions RERA jurisdiction does not confer subject matter jurisdiction to RERA if it does not inherently have it. The court held that the forfeiture clause being challenged under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act presents a valid cause of action that needs to be decided on merits. The court stated that the court's jurisdiction is determined at the time of filing the suit and is not affected by subsequent developments unless explicitly barred by law.
Decision of the Court
The application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC was dismissed. The court found that it has jurisdiction to hear the case and that the plaintiff has a valid cause of action. The parties were directed to file affidavits of admission/denial of documents within 30 days, and the case was scheduled for framing of issues on the next hearing date, i.e., 10.10.2023.
