MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. By this order, I propose to decide two applications filed by the petitioners i.e. one being I.A. No.3160/2015 seeking modification/clarification of the judgment and order dated 4th July, 2011 and another being I.A. No.3226/2015 for stay of the proceedings pending before the learned Arbitrator.

2. The modification is sought by the petitioners to the effect that the directions with respect to commencement of arbitral proceedings shall come into effect with the retrospective date thereof, only after compliance of the provisions of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 with respect to the Collaboration Agreement dated 6th July, 2006.

3. The details of the relevant few facts are given as under:-

(i) The petitioners filed the petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) seeking prayer to terminate the mandate of Sh.Subhash Lakhotia to act as sole Arbitrator in the proceedings. The main contention of the petitioners was that the said sole Arbitrator was appointed at the behest of the respondent who has personal interest in the suit property with the family members of the petitioners.

(ii) After the arguments, the prayer in the said petition was allowed by terminating the mandate of Sh.Subhash Lakhotia as Arbitrator and the matter was referred to the arbitration to be conducted under the aegis of the Delhi High Court Arbitration Centre.

(iii) The respondent filed a review petition being R.A. No.417/2011 seeking review of the order dated 4th July, 2011 on various grounds by referring judgment of the Division Bench dated 16th May, 2011 passed in the case of Oriental Structural Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Alcove Industries Ltd. & Anr., FAO (OS) Nos.128/2008 and 129/2008. During the course of the hearing of the said review petition, with the mutual consent of the parties, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court was appointed as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon all the disputes arising between the parties. The parties also gave their consent to bear the fee of the sole Arbitrator equally and the date for their appearance before the sole Arbitrator was fixed on 31st August, 2012.

The review petition was accordingly disposed of by order dated 3rd August, 2012. Since it was a consent order, it was not challenged by any of the parties.

(iv) It is the admitted position that after passing the said order, the parties duly appeared before the sole Arbitrator. Counter-claim was filed by the petitioners/applicants in July, 2013. Even the petitioners filed the affidavit relating to the admission/denial of the documents. In the affidavit, the petitioners admitted the Collaboration Agreements dated 27th April, 2006 and 6th July, 2006. The said documents were annexed as Annexures C-2 and C-4.

(v) The petitioners also filed an application before the learned Arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act praying for directions to be issued to the respondent to handover the possession of the land which is the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings so as to enable the petitioners to arrange for money and pay the dues of UPSIDC and in the alternative, to issue directions to the respondent to deposit the entire pending dues subject to the final Award to be made by the Tribunal. The said application was considered by the learned Arbitrator on 15th March, 2014. However, the same was withdrawn by the petitioners and the petitioners also filed the additional affidavit by way of admission/denial of the documents to take on record the additional documents.

4. From the pleadings, the learned Arbitrator framed the following issues:-

“ISSUES ON STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

(1) Whether the claim of the claimant is time barred? OPR

(2) Whether the claim of the claimant made on the basis of the agreement dated 27.4.2006 and Collaboration Agreement dated 6.7.2006 were vitiated by fraud and if so, its effect? OPR

(3) Whether the claimant is entitled