Abhishek Surana vs. Parsvnath Landmark

Held

The Court noted that the parties had successfully resolved their disputes through mediation, culminating in a settlement agreement dated May 6, 2019. The plaintiff confirmed that a final sale deed had been executed and that the disputes concerning the present suit were amicably settled as per the agreement. The plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit in accordance with Clause 14 of the settlement. The Court accepted the plaintiff's submission and, in light of the settlement, dismissed the suit as withdrawn. The plaintiff was granted liberty to pursue remedies for recovery of additional amounts due concerning properties that are the subject matter of suits pending before the Tis Hazari Courts. No specific ruling was made on the GST component itself, as it was subsumed within the overall settlement amount.

Facts

The plaintiff, Abhishek Surana, filed a commercial suit (CS(COMM) 219/2017) against the defendant, Parsvnath Landmark. The parties were referred to mediation, which resulted in a successful settlement agreement dated May 6, 2019. Key terms included a reduction in the basic rate of a villa, adjustment of prior payments and compensation, and a balance payable amount of Rs. 99,00,000/- towards the villa cost and other charges like car parking and GST. This balance was to be adjusted by transferring an amount from another unit booked by family members. The settlement also stipulated that the plaintiff would not raise claims for delay compensation or interest, and the defendant would complete construction and offer possession within 12 months. The plaintiff agreed to withdraw the present suit as per Clause 14 of the settlement.

Key Issues

1. Whether the settlement agreement arrived at through mediation is binding on the parties and should be given effect to, concerning the dispute over the villa booking and associated charges, including GST. Petitioner's Argument (Plaintiff): The plaintiff argued that a settlement agreement has been successfully reached through mediation, and a final sale deed has been executed. The plaintiff stated that the disputes pertaining to the present suit are amicably settled as per the terms of the agreement. The plaintiff sought to withdraw the suit in terms of Clause 14 of the settlement agreement, reserving rights to pursue recovery of additional amounts related to other properties. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments from the revenue or state, as this appears to be a commercial dispute between private parties where GST was a component of the settlement charges.