GITA MITTAL, J.

“The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness. He is to draw his inspiration from consecrated principles. He is not to yield to spasmodic sentiment, to vague and unregulated benevolence. He is to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system, and subordinated to “the primordial necessity of order in social life”. Wide enough in all conscience is the field of discretion that remains.”

- Benjamin Cardozo's ‘The Nature of the Judicial Process’ [1949, page 141]

1. The appellant before us is aggrieved by and assails the order dated 14th November, 2014 whereby the learned Single Judge, while disposing of Execution Petition No. 405/2014, has held that the petition seeking execution of the order dated 6th November, 2013 accepting the settlement dated 30th October, 2013 and passing a decree, was not maintainable. This order was premised on the conclusion by the learned Single Judge that the settlement dated 30th October, 2013, arrived at between the parties in the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre, was in the nature of an arbitral award and was required to be executed in the manner of an arbitral award and no decree in terms thereof could be passed.

2. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present appeal, to the extent necessary, are briefly noted hereafter.

3. Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4 jointly held rights and interest in a certain plot of land, admeasuring 14.468 acres situated in Sector 70, Village Fazilpur, Jharsa, Tehsil & District Gurgaon (hereafter ‘said land’). The appellant entered into a Development Rights Agreement (hereafter ‘DRA’), with the respondent no. 2 alongwith respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4, whereby exclusive development rights over the said land were transferred to the appellant. In consideration of the development rights, the appellant had agreed to pay to the owners a sum of Rs.179,00,40,000/- (at the rate of Rs.2,000/- per square feet of FSI for a total of almost 8,97,000 square feet). The amount was to be paid in terms of Clause 3.1 of the DRA.

4. The appellant claims that it discharged considerable liability to the tune of Rs.110 crores in terms of the DRA, however it could not make further payments due to certain disputes which cropped up between the developer and a third party.

5. As a result, differences arose between the parties which led to filing of OMP No.378/2013 by Oasis Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd. (respondent no. 3) against M/s Capital Builders. A second petition being OMP No.420/2013 came to be filed by the present respondent no.1 against the appellant herein. Both petitions had been filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for grant of interim relief while seeking to invoke the arbitration clause under the DRA, and were being listed together.

6. Mr. Akhil Sibal, learned counsel for the appellant relies upon Clause 3.2 of this agreement which stipulates the procedure in the event of a default as follows :

“3.2. The Parties agree that upon completion of 4 (four) months from the date of execution of the Agreement, the Developer shall pay the balance consideration to the Owner in monthly installments of an amount of approximately ranging Rs.7,00,00,000 (Rupees Seven Crores Only) to Rs.10,00,00,000 (Rupees Ten Crores Only) (“Monthly Payments”), which payments upon launch of the Project shall be payable in accordance with Clause 3.3 below. The Parties, however agree and acknowledge that the Developer shall be entitled to deduct, from the last 3 (three) Monthly Payments, all amounts paid and/or payable towards interest on EDC/IDC by the Developer. In the event, payment of the Monthly Installments is delayed by more than 1 (One) month, the Developer shall have a grace period of 10 (ten) days to make such payments, pursuant to which such delayed payments shall be