BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL COMPRISING OF
SOLE ARBITRATOR Sole arbitrator's name
CASE FILE REF. NO. Arbitral case file reference number/03-21.
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Claimant's name: CLAIMANT
VERSUS
First respondent's name& ORS. : RESPONDENTS
D.O.H.:- Date of hearing 2024
REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT TO THE STATEMENT OF DEFENCE FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS TO THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM FILED BY THE CLAIMANT.
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-
That the present Rejoinder is filed on behalf of the Claimant in reply to the Statement of Defence filed by the answering Respondents (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondents") to the Statement of Claim filed by the Claimant (hereinafter referred to as the "SoC"). It is stated that the Respondents have made defamatory and scandalous allegations against the Claimant in their Statement of Defence (hereinafter referred to as the "SoD"), and the Claimant expressly reserves its right to initiate such legal action as may be warranted under law in respect thereof.
Without prejudice to the foregoing, and without in any manner admitting any of the submissions, contentions or allegations made in the Statement of Defence, save and except those expressly admitted herein, the Claimant tenders this Rejoinder to the Statement of Defence as under:-
1.That the contents of paragraph 1 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the Respondent is entitled to deny each and every averment and/or submission made in the Statement of Claim, which is contrary to and inconsistent with the averments made and the facts stated in the present reply.
REPLY TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS:-
2.That the contents of paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections and submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the present claim is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law, and is liable to be dismissed as such. It is further denied that the present claim, as filed by the Claimant, constitutes an abuse of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
3.That the contents of paragraph 3 of the preliminary objections and submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the Respondent was using the Scheduled Property till Date respondent stopped using scheduled property; that during Period of early Covid-19 spread, cases of Covid-19 began to be reported across the globe; and that during Period of severe Covid-19 spread, the disease reached alarming levels of spread and severity, whereupon the W.H.O. declared it a pandemic. It is further denied that the governmental restrictions remained in force for several months, as a result of which the Respondent was no longer able to use the Scheduled Property for the purpose or in the manner envisaged under the Lease Deed. It is further denied that the Respondent terminated the Lease Deed by issuing a Termination Notice dated Date of lease termination notice invoking Clause 26 of the Lease Deed, and that the Respondent vacated the Scheduled Property on Date respondent vacated scheduled property itself.
4.That the contents of paragraph 4 of the preliminary objections and submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that since the termination of the Lease Deed, the Respondent has repeatedly requested the Claimant to refund the Security Deposit of Rs.Security deposit amount (₹)/- (hereinafter referred to as the "Security Deposit"), which the Claimant is allegedly illegally withholding and is liable to refund to the Respondent. It is further denied that the Claimant has illegally retained the Security Deposit till date. It is further denied that the present arbitral proceedings have been initiated by the Claimant merely as a counterblast to the lawful demands made by the Respondent for refund of the Security Deposit.
5.That the contents of paragraph 5 of the preliminary objections and submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the Claimant is guilty of suppression of material facts, or that it has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal in order to evade payment of the legitimate dues of the Respondent. It is further denied that the Claimant has not approached the Hon'ble Tribunal with clean hands, and that the claim is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6.That the contents of paragraph 6 of the preliminary objections and submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the Claimant, on the one hand, has been enjoying possession and exclusive control of the Scheduled Property from Date claimant took possession of scheduled property onwards, and on the other hand is seeking rent and interest till Date till which rent and interest is claimed. It is further denied that the Claimant is thereby legally estopped from claiming rent for the lock-in period.
7.That the contents of paragraph 7 of the preliminary objections and submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the claims made by the Claimant are imaginary and without any cogent proof. It is further denied that the Claimant is seeking reliefs without any substance, proof or merit.
8.That the contents of paragraph 8 of the preliminary objections and submissions are wrong and are denied. It is denied that the Claimant has unlawfully impleaded Impleaded respondent's name and Mr. Impleaded respondent's name as Respondents in the present proceedings in order to harass the Respondent. It is further denied that Mr. Respondent representative's name and Mr. Impleaded respondent's name have no personal involvement in the matter and carry no personal liability. It is further denied that, accordingly, their names are liable to be deleted from the proceedings forthwith.
REJOINDER TO THE PARAWISE REPLY:-
9.That the contents of paragraph 1 of the SoD require no rejoinder, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the SoC are reiterated as correct.
10.That the contents of paragraph 2 of the SoD are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the SoC are reiterated as correct.
11.That the contents of paragraph 3 of the SoD are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the SoC are reiterated as correct.
12.That the contents of paragraph 4 of the SoD are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the SoC are reiterated as correct.
13.That the contents of paragraph 5 of the SoD are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the SoC are reiterated as correct. It is denied that on Date respondent vacated scheduled property, the Respondent lawfully vacated the Scheduled Property, having duly informed the Claimant of the termination of the lease.
14.That the contents of paragraph 6 of the SoD are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the SoC are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent refused to accept the conditional and unlawful offers made by the Claimant. It is further denied that this demonstrates that the Respondent maintained a uniform stand throughout the transactions.
15.That the contents of paragraph 7 of the SoD are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the SoC are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent is under no liability to pay any rent or any other outstanding amount as claimed by the Claimant in paragraph 07.
16.That the contents of paragraph 8 of the SoD are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the SoC are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent is not in breach of the Lease Deed. It is further denied that the Respondent has no liability to pay the alleged outstanding amounts as claimed by the Claimant in paragraph 08. It is further denied that the Claimant has neither pleaded nor proved any damages suffered by it, and that its claims are therefore devoid of any legal or factual basis. It is further denied that, as per Clause 26 of the Lease Deed, the Respondent stood relieved of its liability to pay any rent upon the occurrence of the force majeure event. It is further denied that if the force majeure situation continues for a period exceeding three months, the Lessee shall be entitled to terminate the Lease Deed at its own discretion without further obligation. It is further denied that the Respondent has lawfully terminated the lease by invoking Clause 26 of the Lease Deed.
17.That the contents of paragraph 9 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent is not liable to pay rent for the lock-in period in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
18.That the contents of paragraph 10 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent is not liable to pay rent for the lock-in period in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is further denied that, since the Claimant himself terminated the Lease Deed by legal notice dated Date of claimant's legal notice terminating lease, the Claimant is estopped from claiming rent for any period after that date.
19.That the contents of paragraph 11 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Respondent has not breached any of the terms of the Lease Deed. It is further denied that the Respondent is not liable to pay any rent as claimed. It is further denied that the termination of the Lease Deed was lawful and in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed therein.
20.That the contents of paragraph 12 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct.
21.That the contents of paragraph 13 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the conversion of the property to 'commercial' use is permanent or that the Claimant will enjoy such use permanently. It is further denied that the Claimant has not caused the nature of the property to be reconverted, and therefore the claims made by the Claimant are false and baseless.
22.That the contents of paragraph 14 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct.
23.That the contents of paragraph 15 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct.
24.That the contents of paragraph 16 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct.
25.That the contents of paragraph 17 of the Statement of Defence are reiterated, and hence require no separate reply; the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct.
26.That the contents of paragraph 18 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct.
27.That the contents of paragraph 19 of the Statement of Defence are reiterated, and hence require no separate reply; the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct.
28.That the contents of paragraph 20 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct.
29.That the contents of paragraph 21 of the Statement of Defence are reiterated, and hence require no separate reply; the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct.
30.That the contents of paragraph 22 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct. It is denied that the Statement of Claim filed by the Claimant is barred by limitation. It is further denied that the Statement of Claim suffers from gross delay and laches, or is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
31.That the contents of paragraph 23 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct.
32.That the contents of paragraph 32 of the Statement of Defence are wrong and are denied, and the contents of the corresponding paragraphs of the Statement of Claim are reiterated as correct.
It is denied that the Claimant is not entitled to any of the claims for the reasons already set out in these pleadings. It is further denied that the Claimant is neither entitled to payment of rent for the alleged lock-in period of 24 months nor entitled to payment of conversion charges. It is further denied that the Claimant is liable to refund the security deposit to the Respondent, or to indemnify the Respondent for the losses alleged to have been suffered by it, as set out in the Counter Claim filed by the Respondent.
The paragraphs of the prayer in the Statement of Defence are absolutely wrong and are specifically denied. The Respondents are not entitled to the reliefs claimed therein.
Any allegation made in the Statement of Defence which is not specifically denied herein is absolutely wrong and is deemed to be specifically denied, and the absence of a specific denial shall not be construed as an admission on the part of the Claimant.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may kindly grant the reliefs in favour of the Claimant and against the Respondents as prayed for in the main claim petition, in the interest of justice, equity and the circumstances of the case.
Pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.
It is prayed accordingly.
Place of execution/signingCLAIMANT
THROUGH
DATEDDate of filing
Counsel's name
(Advocate)
Counsel for the Claimant
Mobile No. Counsel's mobile number
Email: Counsel's email address
BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL COMPRISING OF
SOLE ARBITRATOR: Sole arbitrator's name
CASE FILE REF. NO. Arbitral case file reference number
IN THE MATTER OF:
Claimant's name: CLAIMANT
VERSUS
**First respondent's name & ORS.: RESPONDENTS**
AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Deponent's name, aged about Deponent's age years, S/o Sh. Deponent's father's name, R/o Deponent's address, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:
1.That I am the Claimant in the above-noted case, am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, and am competent to swear this affidavit.
2.That the contents of the accompanying Rejoinder to the Statement of Defence have been drafted by my counsel under my instructions and have been read over and explained to me; the same may be read as part and parcel of this affidavit and are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
DEPONENT
VERIFICATION :-
Verified at Place of verification on this Date of verification that the contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part of it is false, and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
DEPONENT