JUDGMENT :

1. Both the parties to the arbitration proceedings are aggrieved by the impugned award dated 31st March, 2022. The petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.355 of 2022 is aggrieved by rejection of the prayer for grant of specific performance of agreement dated 6th October 2003, while the petitioner in Arbitration Petition (L) No.24217 of 2022, is aggrieved by the direction in the impugned award to pay amount of Rs.6,50,000/- along with interest @ 8% per annum, towards refund of amounts received from the rival party. The dispute between the parties concerns registered agreement dated 6th October 2003, clauses of which fall for consideration in these petitions.

2. The facts in brief leading to filing of these two petitions are that John Peter Fernandes, the petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.355 of 2022 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Mr. Fernandes’) entered into an agreement with respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the said petition, whereby Mr. Fernandes agreed to purchase from the respondents the subject property with the intention of opening a restaurant. It is stated that Mr. Fernandes was working as a waiter and that he had arranged for part of the consideration from his relatives and the remainder in the form of a loan from a Co-operative Bank. The agreed consideration was Rs.35,00,000/. The agreement dated 6th October 2003 was registered and although it was recorded that the entire consideration had been paid, it is common ground between the parties that only part of the consideration was paid and the balance amount was due. There is dispute between the parties as to the exact amount that had changed hands between them in the context of the said agreement.

3. Be that as it may, the case of Mr. Fernandes was that after the said agreement was executed, under which the parties had respective obligations, when he returned from his village in June, 2004, he realized that the respondents were carrying on business in the subject property. In this backdrop, Mr. Fernandes filed Suit No.2412 of 2004, for grant of specific performance of the said agreement dated 6th October 2003, further seeking a declaration that the said agreement was subsisting and for a direction to the respondents to accept the balance consideration and to put Mr. Fernandes in possession of the property. A notice of motion for interim reliefs was also moved, but the same was rejected. An appeal was filed wherein the parties entered into consent terms and the appeal was disposed of by referring the disputes between the parties to arbitration.

4. On 15th July 2005, Mr. Fernandes filed his statement of claim, which was opposed by the respondents and eventually by an award dated 3rd February, 2006, the arbitral tribunal directed the respondents to pay Mr. Fernandes a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum, concluding that the said amount was indeed received by the respondents in pursuance of the said agreement.

5. The respondents challenged the said award by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On 8th November 2006, the petition was allowed and the arbitral award was set aside. Aggrieved by the same, Mr. Fernandes filed appeal under Section 37 of the said Act and on 30th March 2017, the Division Bench remanded the matter to the Single Judge for hearing the petition afresh under Section 34 of the said Act. On 12th December 2018, the learned Single Judge constituted another arbitral tribunal, but specifically directed that reference would be limited to the entitlement of the petitioner to claim Rs.11,50,000/-. Both the parties filed review applications, which were dismissed.

6. Mr. Fernandes preferred an appeal under Section 37 of the said Act and the Division Bench of this Court clarified that the arbitral tribunal now constituted would consider all contentions under the reference. In pursuance thereof, the arbitral tribunal consisting on an advocate practicing in this Court was constituted and the learned arb