Real Estate Dispute Resolution

Summary

In a real estate dispute in Punjab, the Petitioner claims the Respondents failure to pay by the final date and ten years of inaction constitute a breach, justifying forfeiture of the token amount and termination of the agreement. The Petitioner also argues that the Respondents unilateral caution on the property title shows bad faith and malicious interference, warranting its removal. Legal steps include filing a civil suit, sending a legal notice, and gathering evidence.

Full Conversation

This matter concerns a dispute stemming from a preliminary agreement for the sale of Plot No. *, Sector-L, Phase *, DHA Lahore, evidenced by a token receipt dated December *, *.The Petitioner, Hasan Zahiddin, and Respondent No. *, Mrs. Saima Malik (represented by Respondent No. *, Hira Estate & Builders, as her real estate agent), entered into this agreement. The Respondents failed to appear at the arbitration proceedings despite repeated notification, calls and whatsapp messages leading to an ex parte hearing.

It looks like you have a solid case, Hasan. The Respondents' failure to appear at arbitration and ten years of inaction strongly support your claim. You should consider filing a case in civil court for the removal of the caution and for the return of the token money, along with the penalty.
Would you like to know more about the steps involved in filing a civil case in Punjab?

write an award on the issue of hassan who executed the token receipt with saima malik through the said real estate agency, next day after the execution of the token receipt the petitioner requested the purchaser and dealer that he changed his mind to sell the property and want to cancel the deal but they refused to do so and placed a unilateral caution againts the plot and disappeared for over 10 years. now the seller discovered the caution, please draft a detailed award with stance of hasan

Arbitration Award
IN THE MATTER OF ARBITRATION BETWEEN:
Hasan Zahiddin (Petitioner)
*AND*
Saima Malik, Hira Estate & Builders (Respondents)
Background:
*. The dispute arises from a token receipt executed on December *, *, for the sale of Plot No. *, Sector-L, Phase *, DHA Lahore.
*. The token receipt indicated the payment of PKR *,* by Saima Malik as token money.
*. Terms included a clause for mutual acceptance, penalty clauses for breach by either party, and final payment date of January *, *.
*. Hasan Zahiddin notified the Respondents of his withdrawal from the agreement on December *, *.
*. Respondents failed to appear for arbitration and did not complete the transaction or pursue legal remedies for over ten years.
*. Hasan discovered a caution placed unilaterally by the Respondents.
Award:
*. The Respondent's failure to complete the transaction and inaction over ten years constitutes a material breach.
*. The Respondent's placement of the caution is deemed bad faith and malicious interference with Hasan's right to dispose of his property.
Decision:
*. The caution placed by the Respondents on Plot No. *, Sector-L, Phase *, DHA Lahore, is to be immediately removed.
*. Hasan Zahiddin is entitled to retain the PKR *,* token amount as the Respondents failed to fulfill their obligations.
*. The Respondents are liable to pay an additional PKR *,* as penalty for breach of the agreement.
Conclusion:
Hasan Zahiddin's claims are upheld due to the Respondents' failure to appear at arbitration and their ten-year inaction, which supports the forfeiture of the token amount and removal of the caution.
Arbitrator:
[Name]
[Date]
---
Would you like to know more about the steps to enforce this award in Punjab?

The Petitioner stated that his claim is based on the terms of the token receipt, executed on Hira Estate & Builders' letterhead, which shows that Respondent No. * paid him PKR *,* as a token against his said plot. This receipt included clauses outlining the consequences of breach by either party, namely, if the seller (Petitioner) backed out, he would be liable to return the token amount plus a PKR *,* penalty, while the buyer (Respondent No. *) would forfeit the token amount if they withdrew. A further clause stipulated that the agreement was subject to mutual acceptance by both buyer and seller. please refine this statement

Sure, here is a refined version of the statement:
"The Petitioner's claim is based on a token receipt issued on Hira Estate & Builders' letterhead, indicating that Respondent No. * paid PKR *,* as a token for the purchase of the Petitioner's plot. The receipt included clauses detailing the consequences of breach by either party: if the seller (Petitioner) backed out, he would return the token amount plus a PKR *,* penalty; if the buyer (Respondent No. *) withdrew, the token amount would be forfeited. Additionally, the agreement was subject to mutual acceptance by both parties."
Would you like more information on how to proceed legally in this situation?

please refine in narration of the petitioner

Sure, here is a refined version of the statement in the narration of the petitioner:
"The Petitioner's claim is based on a token receipt issued on Hira Estate & Builders' letterhead, indicating that Respondent No. * paid PKR *,* as a token for the purchase of the Petitioner's plot. The receipt included clauses detailing the consequences of breach by either party: if the seller (Petitioner) backed out, he would return the token amount plus a PKR *,* penalty; if the buyer (Respondent No. *) withdrew, the token amount would be forfeited. Additionally, the agreement was subject to mutual acceptance by both parties."
Would you like more information on how to proceed legally in this situation?

The Petitioner claims that he exercised his right, under the terms of the token receipt implied by the "subject to acceptance" clause, to withdraw from the agreement on December *, *, the day after the receipt was signed. He duly notified the Respondents of his decision to withdraw and terminate the deal, but despite repeated attempts to secure the termination of the agreement and the return of the token payment, including visits to DHA Lahore from his residence in Peshawar, the Respondents failed to cooperate. refine it

Here's a refined version of the statement:
"The Petitioner claims that, under the 'subject to acceptance' clause in the token receipt, he exercised his right to withdraw from the agreement on December *, *, the day after the receipt was signed. He duly notified the Respondents of his decision. Despite repeated attempts, including visits to DHA Lahore from Peshawar, to terminate the agreement and retrieve the token payment, the Respondents failed to cooperate."
Would you like more information on how to proceed legally in this situation?

The Petitioner asserts that, pursuant to the "subject to acceptance" clause in the token receipt, he exercised his right to withdraw from the agreement on December *, *, one day after the receipt was signed. He duly notified the Respondents of his withdrawal and termination of the agreement. Despite repeated attempts, including visits to DHA Lahore from Peshawar, to secure the termination and the return of the token payment, the Respondents failed to cooperate.
Would you like more information on the steps to take next?

The Petitioner asserts that, under the "subject to acceptance" clause in the token receipt, he exercised his right to withdraw from the agreement on December *, *, the day after the receipt was signed. He duly notified the Respondents of his withdrawal and termination. Despite repeated attempts, including visits to DHA Lahore from Peshawar, to secure the termination and return of the token payment, the Respondents failed to cooperate.
Would you like more information on the legal steps to take next in Punjab?

The Petitioner argues that the Respondents' failure to pay the remaining consideration by the stipulated final payment date of January *, *, coupled with their subsequent ten years of inaction, constitutes a repudiation of the agreement. These material breaches, coupled with the inaction, constitute a waiver of the Respondents' rights under the agreement and justify the forfeiture of the token amount and termination of the agreement.

The Petitioner contends that the Respondents' failure to pay the remaining consideration by the final payment date of January *, *, combined with a decade of inaction, amounts to a repudiation of the agreement. These material breaches and inaction effectively waive the Respondents' rights under the agreement and justify the forfeiture of the token amount and termination of the agreement.
Would you like more details on how to proceed legally in Punjab with this situation?

yes please

In Punjab, to proceed legally in this situation, you should consider the following steps:
*. File a Civil Suit:
- File a civil suit for the removal of the caution and the return of the token money along with the penalty in the appropriate civil court.
*. Legal Notice:
- Send a legal notice to the Respondents through your lawyer, demanding the removal of the caution and the return of the token amount with the penalty.
*. Evidence Collection:
- Gather all relevant documents, including the token receipt, communications with the Respondents, and any evidence of their inaction.
Would you like more detailed information on any of these steps?

Finally, the Petitioner contends that the Respondents' placement of a caution against the title of the property, based solely on the ten-year-old token receipt, constitutes an act of bad faith and malicious interference. This action, taken after the Petitioner's repeated requests for termination of the agreement and the return of the token payment, demonstrates a lack of good faith and an attempt to unjustly impede the Petitioner's right to dispose of his property. The Respondents' failure to pursue any legal remedies based on the agreement for over a decade, following the Petitioner's withdrawal and requests, further strengthens this claim and supports the argument for immediate removal of the caution. please refine this statment

The Petitioner asserts that the Respondents' placement of a caution against the property title, based solely on a decade-old token receipt, constitutes bad faith and malicious interference. Despite repeated requests to terminate the agreement and return the token payment, this action unjustly impedes the Petitioner's property rights. The Respondents' decade-long inaction and failure to pursue legal remedies further support the Petitioner's claim for the immediate removal of the caution.

Finally, the Petitioner contends that the Respondents' placement of a unilateral caution against the title of the property relying on the token receipt and no follow-up of the same for 10 years, constitutes an act of bad faith and malicious interference. The Respondents' failure to pursue any legal remedies based on the agreement for over a decade, following the Petitioner's withdrawal and requests, further strengthens this claim and supports the argument for immediate removal of the caution.

The Petitioner contends that the Respondents' placement of a unilateral caution against the title of the property, based solely on the ten-year-old token receipt, constitutes an act of bad faith and malicious interference. This action, taken after the Petitioner's repeated requests for termination of the agreement and the return of the token payment, demonstrates a lack of good faith and an attempt to unjustly impede the Petitioner's right to dispose of his property. The Respondents' failure to pursue any legal remedies based on the agreement for over a decade, following the Petitioner's withdrawal and requests, further strengthens this claim and supports the argument for immediate removal of the caution.

please recite this statement in form of narration of the petitioner. Finally, the Petitioner contends that the Respondents' placement of a unilateral caution against the title of the property relying on the token receipt and no follow-up of the same for 10 years, constitutes an act of bad faith and malicious interference. The Respondents' failure to pursue any legal remedies based on the agreement for over a decade, following the Petitioner's withdrawal and requests, further strengthens this claim and supports the argument for immediate removal of the caution.

"The Petitioner contends that the Respondents' placement of a unilateral caution against the title of my property, relying solely on a decade-old token receipt, demonstrates bad faith and malicious interference. Despite my repeated requests for termination of the agreement and the return of the token payment, the Respondents failed to act. Their inaction for over ten years, without pursuing any legal remedies, further substantiates my claim and underscores the need for the immediate removal of the caution."
Would you like more advice on the next steps to take in this case?

The Petitioner argues that the Respondent's failure to pay the remaining consideration by the final payment date of January *, *, coupled with the failure of the remaining consideration amount on the final date of *-*-* as well as their subsequent ten years of inaction these material breaches amounts to a waiver of the Respondent's rights under the agreement and constitutes a repudiation of the agreement and justify forfeiture of the token amount and termination of the agreement. please correct this statement

"The Petitioner argues that the Respondent's failure to pay the remaining consideration by the final payment date of January *, *, coupled with ten years of subsequent inaction, amounts to a material breach. This breach constitutes a waiver of the Respondent's rights under the agreement and justifies the forfeiture of the token amount and termination of the agreement."
Would you like more information on how to proceed with this case in Punjab?

"The Petitioner maintains that the Respondents' unilateral placement of a caution against the title of the property in DHA, without any subsequent action or follow-up, demonstrates a blatant disregard for the principles of fairness and good faith. Furthermore, the Respondents' inaction for over a decade, despite the Petitioner's repeated withdrawals and requests, unequivocally establishes their malicious intent and constitutes a gross abuse of process. Consequently, the Petitioner respectfully submits that the caution should be lifted forthwith, as it is no longer justified or warranted." please rephrase it

"The Petitioner asserts that the Respondents' unilateral placement of a caution against the title of the property in DHA, without any further action or follow-up, shows a disregard for fairness and good faith. The Respondents' decade-long inaction, despite the Petitioner's repeated requests, demonstrates malicious intent and an abuse of process. Thus, the Petitioner requests the immediate removal of the caution, as it is unjustified."

"It is submitted that the Petitioner entered into a preliminary agreement with Respondent No. *, Mrs. Saima Malik, for the sale of House No. *, Sector-L, Phase *, DHA, Lahore, on December *, *. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, a token amount of PKR *,* was paid by Respondent No. * as a gesture of good faith, as reflected in the token receipt dated *-*-*, executed on the letterhead of Hira Estate & Builders. Notably, the receipt explicitly stated that the agreement was conditional upon mutual acceptance by both parties. Pursuant to this condition, the Petitioner exercised his contractual right to terminate the agreement and formally notified the Respondents of his decision to rescind the agreement on December *, *. rephrase

Here's the refined version:
"The Petitioner entered into a preliminary agreement with Respondent No. *, Mrs. Saima Malik, for the sale of House No. *, Sector-L, Phase *, DHA, Lahore, on December *, *. Respondent No. * paid a token amount of PKR *,* as a gesture of good faith, as reflected in the token receipt dated *-*-*, issued on the letterhead of Hira Estate & Builders. The receipt explicitly stated that the agreement was conditional upon mutual acceptance by both parties. Pursuant to this condition, the Petitioner exercised his contractual right to terminate the agreement and formally notified the Respondents of his decision to rescind the agreement on December *, *. Despite multiple attempts to finalize the termination and the return of the token payment, including personal visits to DHA Lahore from Peshawar, the Respondents failed to cooperate, frustrating the Petitioner's efforts to close the agreement."
Would you like to know the next legal steps to take in this situation?

the tribunal finds that the Respondent's failure to fulfill their contractual obligation to pay the remaining consideration by the stipulated deadline of January *, *, constitutes a material breach of the agreement. This breach, coupled with Respondent No. * subsequent failure to take any steps to enforce her rights or to communicate with the Petitioner, demonstrates a clear repudiation of the agreement.

The tribunal finds that the Respondent's failure to pay the remaining consideration by the deadline of January *, *, constitutes a material breach of the agreement. This breach, along with Respondent No. *'s subsequent inaction and lack of communication, clearly repudiates the agreement.
Would you like to know the exact process for filing a civil case in Punjab to address this issue?

Real Estate Dispute Resolution

Summary

Full Conversation

Related Chats