The court upheld the trial court's dismissal of the appeal against the arbitration award, confirming that there was no patent illegality or grounds for interference under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, ('the Arbitration Act' for short) against the judgment dated 21.09.2024 passed by the LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru, (CCH-75) ('the trial Court' for short) in A.S. No.25003/2023.

2. We have heard Shri Mithun S.K., learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri. Udaya Holla, learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Shri. Sanjay H. Sethiya, learned Advocate appearing for caveator/respondent No.1.

3. The appellant was the claimant in A.C.No.134/2022. The claim was based on a Joint Development Agreement dated 22.10.2012. The claim raised was that respondent No.1 herein/developer had to pay an amount of Rs.47,46,17,454/- as compensation and in the alternative, to direct the developer to hand over 39,551 square feet of Super Built-Up area in the Schedule Property. The project in question was the construction of a multi- storied residential complex in property bearing No.98, Bull Temple Road, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru. The respondents being put on notice had submitted their objections to the claim statement and had also filed a counter claim as follows:-

"a) Declaring that the Owner/Claimant/Petitioner's share of Super Built up Area in the residential project put up on the Schedule Property stands reduced to 45,574.67 sq.ft., and 21,413.33 sq.ft. sq.ft. of Owner/Claimant/Petitioner's share of Super-Built up Area stands apportioned to the Developer/Respondent's share,

b) Directing the Owner/Claimant/Petitioner to execute fresh Sharing Agreement, incorporating the reduction of the Owner/Claimant/Petitioner's share to 45,754.67 sq.ft. Super-Built up Area, and apportioning 21,413.33 sq.ft. sq.ft. of Super-Built up Area, to the share of the Respondent, in relation to the residential project put up on the Schedule Property.

c) Directing the Owner/Claimant/Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.4,72,80,130/- (Rupees Four Crores Seventy Two Lakhs Eighty Thousand One Hundred & Thirty only), to the Respondent towards GST, Deposits/Pro-rata Charges, Maintenance Charges and Electricity Charges,

d) Directing the Owner/Claimant/Petitioner to pay charges towards DG installation at the rate of Rs.75/sq.ft. of his reduced SBA,

e) Directing the Owner/Claimant/Petitioner to pay the club membership charges at the rate of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) per flat, and Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) per penthouse, as per the revised sharing agreement to be executed, after reduction of Owner/Claimant/Petitioner's share of SBA,

f) Directing the Owner/Claimant/Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crores only) to indemnify the Respondent for the violations committed by the Claimant/Petitioner and

g) Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case."

4. The learned sole arbitrator had considered the contentions advanced on both sides and had rejected the claim. The counter claim of the respondent was allowed in part and a total amount of Rs.18,31,82,187/- was directed to be paid by the claimant to the developer with 12% interest per annum from date of claim petition till realization. The said award was challenged by the appellant by filing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act which also came to be dismissed after considering the contentions elaborately.

5. The present appeal is preferred challenging the order of the