The court emphasized the importance of written agreements in determining the rights and obligations of the parties, as per Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, and rejected the argument that the MOU lacked consideration.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. These three petitions are filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) impugning the Award of the Arbitrator dated 28.5.2007. The operative part of the Award reads as under:-

“ISSUE NO.11

Whether the respondents are entitled to recover any amount? If so, what amount, from the claimant?

69. As already held, the respondents are not entitled to recovery any amount from the claimant, as it was the respondents who committed default in terms of the Memorandum of Agreement and as already held the respondents are not entitled to claim any rent of the premises after 31st January, 2001 or mesne profits or damages. Thus, this issue is decided against the respondents.

70. I make the award as follows:-

I. That the respondents shall pay to the claimant jointly and severely Rs.1,11,39,358/- (one crore eleven lacs, thirty-nine thousand, three hundred and fifty eight only). The liability of the respondent No.2, is restricted to only Rs.1,07,11,500/- (one crore, seven lac, eleven thousand, five hundred only).

II. That the respondents shall pay Rs.2 lac (two lac) as cost of these proceedings to the claimant.

III. That the respondents shall pay aforesaid amounts on or before 1st August, 2007 failing which the respondents shall pay interest @ 16% per annum from 1-6-2007 on the unpaid amount till payment.

IV. That the counter claims raised by the respondent are rejected.”

2. At the outset, counsel appearing for the petitioner in OMP No.496/2007 states that Sh. Rattan Lal Varma who was the karta of the HUF has expired yesterday ie on 6.1.2016, however, that would not have any effect on OMP No.496/2007 which is filed by an HUF concern and which is a separate legal entity as per Order XXX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) than the individual coparceners who constitute the HUF. For the record, it is also noted that the name of the respondent M/s ABN Amro Bank NV has already been changed to Royal Bank of Scotland and which factual aspect is taken on record. Respondents will accordingly file the amended memo of parties within four weeks.

3. Petitioners in these OMPs represent the owners/landlords of the suit premises comprising a total area of 4,550 sq ft of the 9th floor on the building of Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi. Petitioners/landlords let out the premises and the furniture/fixtures etc with respect to the premises to the respondent no.1-tenant. The lease deeds with respect to the total area of 4,550 sq ft are dated 12.10.1994 and were for a period of three years. Simultaneously, with the lease deeds, an Agreement of the same date i.e 12.10.1994 was entered into between the parties with respect to furniture and fixtures installed in the subject premises comprising of an area of 4550 sq ft. Besides the rent and fixture charges payable for the tenanted premises, and which rental etc aspect is not material for disposal of the present petitions, the owners/landlords were also paid interest free security deposits of Rs.82,12,500/- +20,25,500/- +34,12,500/- by the respondent no.1-tenant. Disputes and differences arose between the parties on account of the fact that respondent no.1 contended that returning of possession of the tenanted premises at the conclusion of the tenancy was to be simultaneously with petitioners refunding the security deposits but the petitioners contended otherwise. Respondent no.1 ultimately filed a suit in this Court being suit no. 2117/2001. In this suit, the Arbitrator was appointed by consent between the parties vide Order dated 23.9.2005. It is the Award by this Arbitrator being the Award dated 28.5.2007 with its operative portion as stated above, directing the recovery of amounts in favour of the respondent no.1 and against the petitioners alongwith interest which is impugned in these three petitions under