A decision that disregards vital evidence and misconstrues documents, leading to an irrational conclusion, cannot be countenanced by the court as fair or judicious.

1. This arbitration petition challenges an award passed by a sole arbitrator in a reference. The reference arose out of an umbrella agreement, under which the Petitioner had agreed to procure land so as to transfer the same to the Respondent.

2. The facts of the case may be briefly stated as follows :

The Petitioner is the sole proprietor of a firm known as 'M/s. Manvel Land Empire', whilst the Respondent is engaged in the business of real estate development. The Respondent was interested in acquiring land in Raigad District in Maharashtra for the purposes of development. To that end, the parties entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 31 January 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “original “MOU”), under which the Petitioner agreed to acquire land at various places in Taluka Khalapur, District Raigad and transfer the same to the Respondent. The agreement was supplemented by a supplementary agreement dated 21 February 2006. Under these agreements, various payments were made by the Respondent to the Petitioner aggregating to Rs.91 lakhs for procurement of land. It is the case of the Respondent that no land was procured by the Petitioner in pursuance of the agreements and that the Petitioner was thus liable to refund the whole amount of Rs.91 lakhs paid by the Respondent to him in pursuance of the agreements. It is, on the other hand, the case of the Petitioner that he had procured land and caused the same to be transferred to a nominee/assignee of the Respondent in pursuance of the agreement between the parties and that it was the Respondent, who had failed to pay the agreed consideration between the parties towards such procurement and transfer. The disputes between the parties were referred by an order passed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the sole arbitration of the learned arbitrator herein. Both parties led oral and documentary evidence before the learned arbitrator. The learned arbitrator, after taking into account the evidence and hearing the parties, ordered refund of the said amount of Rs.91 lakhs to the Respondent. The present petition challenges that award.

3. The evidence produced before the learned arbitrator clearly shows that the parties had entered into the original MOU as an umbrella agreement for procurement and transfer of different parcels of land in favour of the Respondent. The villages, in which agricultural lands were to be procured and conveyed to the Respondent, were described in the MOU. The MOU provided for the price of the lands at the rate of Rs.5,30,000/- per acre, and payment of earnest money of Rs.21 lakhs to the Petitioner on the date of the execution of the agreement and a commitment on the part of the Respondent to pay the balance consideration at or upon the execution and registration of conveyance deed/s for lands, as and when the same were bought by the Petitioner from the respective owners, directly to the owners of the properties as per the schedule of payment mutually decided by and between the parties. The MOU entitled the Respondent to assign its rights there under to any other person. The original MOU was modified by a supplemental memorandum of understanding executed between the parties on 21 February 2006 (“supplemental MOU”). The supplemental MOU inter alia recorded and acknowledged the fact that the Petitioner had already begun the work of acquisition of land in the village of Lodhivali as per the requirements of the Respondent and made investments and entered into MOU with one Sulochana Mohan Kalyankar and others as also with one Namdev Kadam and another. The supplemental MOU recorded the representation of the Petitioner that funds were required towards payment to Sulochana Kalyankar and others, and provided for payment of a further sum of Rs.20 lakhs to the Petitioner upon deposit of the original MOU with Sulochana Kalyankar and others. Subsequent to the supplemental MOU, on or about 24 March 2006, the Petitioner admittedly addres