Parinam Law Associates | View firm profile
Ms. Sussanne Khan (“Ms. Khan“) had agreed to provide professional designing services and drawings for 12 uniquely styled villas to be constructed in Goa to Emgee Properties, a partnership (through Mr. Mudhit Gupta – Partner) (“Emgee“).
Ms. Sussanne Khan (“Ms.Khan”) had agreed to provide professional designing services and drawings for 12 uniquely styled villas to be constructed in Goa to Emgee Properties, a
partnership (through Mr. Mudhit Gupta – Partner) (“Emgee”).
Ms. Khan was awarded Rs. 2.31 crores by an arbitrator under the agreement and it is a claim for a price of the drawings/designs supplied, which in fact had been put to use by Mr. Mudhit Gupta even after terminating the agreement. Emgee’s case was that Ms. Khan’s designs were incomplete and she was not entitled to the amount claimed since Ms. Khan had indicated that she was not willing to comply with her obligations. The first challenge to the award was dismissed by a single judge of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. The decision of the single judge was challenged before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
The Division Bench has ruled that the award rightly rules that Ms. Khan could not be blamed for the delay in submissions of designs and plans. The arbitrator did not award damages
on the premise that they were liquidated damages or a decree for specific performance of the contract. The award was based on calculation of the agreed price for the drawings/works. The Division Bench expressed their satisfaction with the exercise of juridical power by the arbitrator and refused to interfere.
Ms. Sussanne Khan was represented by Advocates Hitesh Jain, Pooja U. Tidke and Krushi N. Barfiwala from Parinam Law Associates.