The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent is bound to comply with the consent award and make payments under clause 21. The court also emphasized the obligation of the respondent to disclose details of unsold units and restrained the respondent from alienating unsold units in Tower C.

JUDGMENT

1. The applicants are proceeding in execution of consent award passed by a sole arbitrator. The applicants are the claimants in arbitration. Three separate applications seek the diverse reliefs against the sole respondent. In the Chamber Summons of several reliefs, the applicants have now restricted their claim to prayer clauses j (i) & (ii) and prayer clause k(ii) restricted to unsold units in Tower C.

2. In application no.3557 of 2020, the applicant seeks a temporary injunction restraining the respondent, its servants and agents from alienating, creating third party rights or transferring development rights granted to respondent under a development agreement dated 13th April, 2013 without prior approval of the applicants. The applicants also seek an order directing the respondent to disclose (a) Minutes of Meetings held on 30th August, 2020 between respondent and its lead investors and third parties in relation to the project known as Omkar 1973 at Worli; (b) details and information about any transaction entered into by the respondent and any third party in relation to transfer of its development rights in the project and (c) details and information entered into between the respondent and third parties in relation to the said project.

3. In the third proceeding, Interim application no.3 5 59 of 2019, the applicants seek an order directing the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.71,09,820/- p.m. to the applicants under clause 21 of the consent terms between the parties till the applicants are handed over the agreed and allocated constructed premises described as "Modified Owners' Allocation."

4. According to the applicants, based on the respondent's calculation in accordance with clause 21, monthly rent of Rs. 71,09,820/- is payable to the applicants. As of August 2020, the total outstanding is Rs. 12,53,37,885/-. The respondent is liable to pay the monthly sums under the Award until the entire Modified Owners' Allocation is handed over, monthly rent would have to be paid. Some demand drafts were handed over in part payment of rent but these were not encashed since the rent was not tendered in full.

5. Pursuant to breaches of the development agreements, the claimant/applicants had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act which the Court converted to one under Section 17 before the Arbitrator. That application came to be allowed and the respondent was restrained from parting with possession of any units till handing over of the Owners' Allocation. The parties thereafter entered into negotiations and consent terms were arrived at thereby the restraint under Section 17 was relaxed, partially vacated on the promise of timely completion of Owners' Allocation and payment of certain monetary consideration. Monetary consideration in a substantial sum has been paid but the rent promised is still outstanding.

6. On behalf of the applicants, Mr. Jagtiani submitted that the applicant nos. 1, 2 & 3 are owners of the land upon which the project is being constructed and had entered into a Development Agreement with the respondent. The project contemplates construction of three towers A, B & C. The applicant no. 4 though not a party to the development agreement, is a beneficiary under the consent terms dated 3rd October, 2018 which led to the passing of a consent award. The non-monetary obligations of the respondent was to provide the applicants all 5 flats on the 69th floor of Tower A, one flat on the 30th floor of Tower A, two duplex flats on 66th and 67th floor of Tower B and flats no.4801, 4802, 4901 and 4902 in Tower B. These were required to be completed and handed over in a time bound fashion. Mr. Jagtiani submitted that the respondent had committed breach of all the undertakings to hand over flats in question. He relied upon a list of breaches. According to him the respondents had committed breach of the Clauses 10(ii), 11(ii), 12, 13(ii) (iv) 14(i)(iv) and 21 of the consent Award.

7. The respondent was re