This is due to the fact that the developer is the plaintiff and the lawsuit is against the owner, strictly enforced, clause (iii) would require that the defendant received possession under the agreement. Therefore, if, in such a situation, the developer sues for concrete benefit against an owner in possession of the land under a legitimate property, it cannot be ruled out that the defendant acquired the land by way of agreement. … in contradiction with the other, the latter must be able to gain the upper hand, the permeability of the application of this right can undoubtedly be balanced to enforce this right… Recipient, allegedly with the exception of the applicant: Urmila entered into a development agreement in favour of respondent No. 11 and such an execution of the agreement was granted by the …, did not appear and did not sign the aforementioned agreement. Respondent 11, on the basis of a clause authorizing the award, has his right, development and construction in favour of M/s. Abani Abasan… (2) Except under the Arbitration Act of 1940 (10 of 1940), no contract for contesting current or future disputes is explicitly applied to arbitration; however, if a person who has entered into such a contract (with an arbitration agreement other than an arbitration agreement to which the provisions of that law apply) and who has refused to execute it complains with respect to all the matters with which it relates, the existence of such a contract prevents the legal action. It seems that, in the case of a development agreement in which the developer is not only authorized to build the building, he also receives reflections/cash flows from it and, therefore, a power of attorney is executed in favor of the developer to obtain, among other things, authorizations, sale of shares and obtaining consideration, which becomes essentially irrevocable under the provisions of Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and, therefore, in its very nature, in the absence of the provisions of paragraph 14, paragraph 3, point c), a contract for which an aggrieved promoter may claim a particular benefit. In addition, this court found that there was no explicit blocking of action for concrete provision for a construction agreement and also defined the conditions to be met before such a means could be retained. … 14 (3)c) of that law and went on to assert that action by a developer seeking to enforce a development agreement is not prohibited by Section 14 (3)) (c) of that law.

It was… as if. He then argued that the mere fact that it was qualified as a development agreement would not allow the applicant to discharge a particular benefit… question. He referred to various clauses to emphasize that it was in fact a sale agreement, which was called a development agreement.