Rajiv Shakdher, J.

1. This is an appeal filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short the Act) against the order dated 06.09.2013, passed by the learned sole arbitrator, on an application, preferred under Section 9 of the Act by the appellant herein.

1.1 The appellant had filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act, whereupon this court vide order dated 25.02.2013, passed an interim order of injunction qua the respondents herein, in respect of, land admeasuring 175.19 acres situate in Village Manjari, Pune, State of Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the land in issue). The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.07.2013, whereby, inter alia, directions were issued with the consent of the parties to the effect that a retired Judge of the Supreme Court be appointed as a sole arbitrator in the matter; who would be empowered to deal with the petition as an application under Section 17 of the Act. Pending disposal of the application, interim order dated 25.02.2013, was to remain operable. The arbitrator, was to be given the liberty to vacate or modify or affirm or even expand the scope of the order, if necessary, in accordance with law.

1.2 Accordingly, as agreed, Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha, a former Judge of the Supreme Court was appointed as a sole arbitrator in the matter. The petition, under Section 9 was treated by him, as an application under Section 17 of the Act, which resulted in the impugned order being passed. It may be noted that, at the stage at which, the impugned order was passed, the appellant, who is the claimant in the arbitration proceedings, had not filed its statement of claims. Similarly, the respondents had not preferred any counter claims.

1.3 It must be said, at the very outset, that the counsels appearing for the appellant have categorically submitted before me that even though its application before the learned arbitrator related to three (3) parcels of land (the details with respect to which are set out hereinafter), it is presently, concerned with only the first parcel of land, and that too, land admeasuring 175.19 acres. Thus, in relation to the land in issue, the appellant is, presently, aggrieved by the condition put by the learned arbitrator, while granting an injunction in its favour. The impugned condition requires the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.50 Crores in an escrow account and/or in a fixed deposit for a period of one year within four weeks of the date of the said order. The interest accrued is to enure to the benefit of the successful party. Therefore, while the respondents have been restrained from alienating or parting with possession or creating any third party rights or facilitating sale directly in favour of third parties, in respect of, the land in issue, the said direction has come with the aforesaid condition.

2. In order to appreciate the rival contentions advanced before me, by counsels for the parties, the following broad facts need to be noticed :

2.1 Respondent no.1 is a company engaged in real estate business, apparently, in Western India. Respondent no.2, who apparently is the Chairman-cum-Director of respondent no.1 as also a sole proprietor of a concern by the name of Suryakant Kakade & Associates, purportedly approached the appellant, for jointly developing, on revenue sharing basis, a real estate project, in Pune. This is how the appellant portrays the case before this court.

2.2 It is, however, not in dispute that a Memorandum of Understanding dated 18.01.2007 (MOU) was executed between the parties herein, based on the aforesaid broad understanding. At this stage, the appellant, evidently paid a sum of Rs.1.01 Crores to the respondents. According to the appellant, the MOU related to land admeasuring 520 acres, and that, the respondents had undertaken to give to it, the first option, to develop additional land, if any, acquired in the vicinity of the existing land. It is the appellant’s understanding, that the tot