A valid contract for specific performance must have certainty regarding price, parties, property, and terms; lack of clarity renders the agreement void.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Court was of the opinion that there are arguable issues raised on behalf of the Petitioners in these Petitions and these Petitions can be heard and disposed of at the admission stage. The above Arbitration Petitions are connected and identical challenge has been raised to the Arbitral Awards passed in these Petitions. The issues in Claim No.5 has been decided by the learned Arbitrator in the Arbitral Award dated 22nd April, 2022 which is impugned in Arbitration Petition (L) No.28284 of 2022. The learned Arbitrator in the impugned Award in Claim No.5 has held that the reasons and findings on all the issues will apply to the issues in each of respective preferred references/claims before the learned Arbitrator. Thus, the reasons and findings on all the issues raised in Claim No.5 have been applied to the other 9 references/claims where the Awards dated 23rd April, 2022 have been passed and which are impugned.

2. Accordingly, the Arbitration Petitions are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

3. As the relevant facts are similar, for convenience, the facts in Arbitration Petition (L) No.28284 of 2022 are referred to which are as under:

(i) The Respondents who were the Original Claimants in the Arbitral Proceedings were desirous of purchasing a fully developed Bungalow to be constructed and developed by the Petitioner who was the Original Respondent in the Arbitral Proceedings with amenities such as Roads, Electricity, Switch, Drainage etc. for their own personal use under the Arrow City Manhattan Project (“the said Project”). Accordingly, the Respondents Claimants approached the Petitioner for purchasing a Plot admeasuring 500 Sq. Yards as fully developed freehold being a part of the said Project.

(ii) Pursuant to the interest shown by the Respondents Claimants in the said Project, the Petitioner allotted to the Respondents a Plot bearing No.EE-16 in Beta Sector Block-6 admeasuring 500 Sq. Yards situated on the land in the area of Taluka - Pen, District - Raigad, State of Maharashtra vide Allotment Letter dated 15th October, 2008.

(iii) The Petitioner obtained permission under Section 63(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act to purchase the Agricultural lands in several villages in Taluka – Pen, District – Raigad for the development of the said Project.

(iv) The Respondents as per the Allotment Letters issued on 20th November, 2008 and 28th May, 2009 paid to the Petitioner a sum of Rs.2,29,885/-, against which, the Petitioner issued receipts.

(v) The Petitioner entered into Agreement with the Respondents on 29th May, 2009 in respect of an unidentified Plot of land admeasuring 500 Sq. Yards for the agreed consideration of Rs.9,99,500/- being at the rate of Rs.1,999/-per Sq. Yards and according to the Petitioner, an additional payment of Development Charges etc. was also provided in the Agreement.

(vi) The Respondents had at the time of execution of the Agreement made payment of Rs.4,59,885/- being approximately 50% of the total consideration.

(vii) The Petitioner addressed a letter to the Respondents on 15th December 2009 demanding payment of 10% of total consideration for road construction i.e. Rs.99,950/-. This was paid by the Respondents on 08th January, 2010 and receipts have been issued by the Petitioner. The Respondents had approximately paid 60% of the said consideration.

(viii) The period for completion of the development of the said Project with agreed extended period of six months expired in November, 2011.

(ix) On 24th April, 2013, as there was no response from the Petitioner and seeing no progress on the said Project, the Respondents addressed a letter dated 24th April, 2013, sent by way of Speed Post to the Petitioner requesting the Petitioner to inform the date of handing over of possession of their Plot.

(x) There was no response received by the Petitioner and accordingly the Respondents on 17th January, 2014 visited the Petitioner’s office at Belapur, Navi Mumbai for discussing with