The court affirmed that arbitral awards can only be set aside under Section 34 if grounds of patent illegality are established, emphasizing the sanctity and finality of arbitration decisions.

JUDGMENT :

V KAMESWAR RAO, ACJ.

The challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 04/04/2022 passed by the learned LXXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (‘Trial Court’ for short) in Com.AP No.17/2020, whereby the Trial Court has dismissed the petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act of 1996’ for short).

2. The facts to be noted are, it is the case of the appellants that, they are the absolute owners of the converted lands bearing Sy.No.95 measuring 2 acres 36 guntas, Sy.No.96 measuring 4 acres 04 guntas, Sy.No.97/1 measuring 30 guntas, Sy.No.97/2 measuring 1 acre 03 guntas, Sy.No.99/3 measuring 29 guntas, in all measuring 9 acres 22 guntas, situated at Lingapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru District.

3. The respondent No.1 is partnership firm and is represented by its one of the Partner Sri. Tony Vincent. Respondent No.1 entered into joint development agreement dated 19/05/2014 registered as Document No.1383/2014-15, Book I, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Attibele, Anekal Taluk with the appellants, to form a residential layout in accordance with sanctioned plan and licence and specifications agreed between the parties as per the joint development agreement in respect of schedule properties.

4. According to the appellants, the respondent No.1 agreed to bear the entire cost of development and formation of residential layout providing all the required amenities as agreed in the joint development agreement. The appellants also executed a general power of attorney dated 19/05/2014 registered as Document No.59/2014-15 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Attibele, Anekal Taluk, to facilitate the respondent No.1 to develop the lands as agreed on the schedule properties, including getting necessary plans drawing commencement certificate, completion certificate etc., and to deal with necessary statutory authorities and for completing the project.

5. The respondent No.1 entered into rectification of joint development agreement dated 19/11/2015 registered as Document No.3621/2015-16 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Anekal, regarding correction of sharing ratio in the aforesaid joint development agreement dated 19/05/2014. According to the appellants, as per the rectification deed, the appellants are entitled for 67% of sital area or 1,50,508 square feet in the residential layout to be formed in the schedule property and the respondent No.1 was to retain 33% of the sital area.

6. That as per clause 11.1 of the joint development agreement, the respondent No.1 had agreed to deliver owners’ share of sital area within a period of 15 months from the date of registration of the joint development agreement, with a grace period of 2 months.

7. That as per clause 11.2 of the joint development agreement, the respondent No.1 agreed and undertook to compensate the owners at the rate of Rs.30,000/- per acre of land in the schedule properties per month and to pay compensation every month, in the event, developer was unable to adhere to deliver the sital area as aforesaid and if there is delay for the reasons not attributable for reasons set out in clause 11.3.

8. That as per clause 11.3 of the joint development agreement, the developer shall not incur any liability for any delay in delivery of the possession of the owners’ sital area, by reasons of Governmental restrictions and/or by reason of civil commotion, any act of God or due to any injunction or prohibitory order or conditions of force majeure. In any of the aforesaid events, which are beyond the control of the developer, the developer shall be entitled to corresponding extension of time, for delivery of the said o