Case Note & Summary
The appeal was filed by the Appellant against an order dated 09.03.2026, which rejected their application regarding the payment demanded by the Resolution Professional (RP). The Appellant argued that the government policy capped the cost for the Gurgaon-Manesar Urban Complex at Rs. 16 lakhs, which should include all costs. They claimed that the RP demanded an amount exceeding this limit, leading to their application. The Respondent, however, contended that the amount demanded was in accordance with the Builder Buyer Agreement (BBA) and did not pertain solely to the land cost but included other charges as specified in the BBA. The Adjudicating Authority noted the relevant clauses of the BBA, which indicated that the basic price did not cover several additional charges that could be demanded by the company. The court found that the Appellant had agreed to these terms and could not contest the additional charges. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the RP's demand under the BBA.
Headnote
A) Contract Law - Builder Buyer Agreement - Additional Charges - Builder Buyer Agreement, 2009 - The Appellant contended that the amount demanded exceeded Rs. 16 lakhs as per government policy, but the court found that the BBA explicitly allowed for additional charges beyond this amount. The appeal was dismissed as the Appellant had agreed to the terms of the BBA, which included additional costs. Held that the demand was valid under the agreement (Paras 6-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the amount demanded by the Resolution Professional exceeded the stipulated limit of Rs. 16 lakhs as per the Builder Buyer Agreement.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of the demand made by the Resolution Professional under the Builder Buyer Agreement. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Builder Buyer Agreement
- additional charges
- contractual obligations
- appeal dismissal
