MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The abovementioned objection petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) against the award dated 4th March, 2015.

2. Admitted facts of the case are that the respondent No.1 Mr.Anuj Bairathi intended to purchase a plot bearing No.5 measuring 5000 square meters situated in Sector-90, Noida, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the “said property”) from the petitioner. The respondent No.2 is a Company of the respondent No.1 and respondent No.3 is the broker in the agreement entered into between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1.

3. An Agreement to Sell dated 9th March, 2013 was entered into between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.1 for the sale of the said property for a total sale consideration of Rs.7,60,00,000/-. It was also stated in the agreement that the respondent No.1 can also take over the petitioner No.1-Company under the said agreement. A sum of Rs.1,10,00,000/- was paid as advance at the time of the execution of the agreement.

4. The balance consideration of Rs.6,50,00,000/- was to be paid by the respondent No.1 within 90 days of the execution of the Agreement.

5. Till 3rd June, 2013, respondent No.1 also made various payments to the petitioners. The details of the same would be discussed later on.

6. It was also mentioned in the agreement that the petitioner No.1 will obtain NOC/CIC in favour of the respondent No.1 from the concerned authorities within 30 days before the expiry of the agreement. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners made all the efforts to complete the formalities mentioned in the agreement. They approached all the concerned departments for getting all the statutory permissions. They obtained the NOC from the account department of Noida Authority and on 11th July, 2013 CIC/CIS was also obtained from Noida Authority and thereafter, they duly informed the respondent No.1 that all the formalities have been completed and they are in a position to execute the transfer of documents in favour of respondent No.1, however, the respondent No.1 was never ready with the balance payment.

7. Disputes arose between the parties. On 24th April, 2014 the petitioners received a letter from the Arbitrator stating therein that the respondent No.3 had appointed him for adjudicating the disputes between the petitioners and the respondents under the Agreement to Sell dated 9th March, 2013.

8. The respondents No.1 and 2 filed statement of claim for the relief of specific performance of the Agreement to Sell dated 9th March, 2013 or in the alternative for refund of amount already paid along with interest. The petitioners filed their reply and pleaded that they were always ready and willing to perform their part however, it appears that the respondents were insisting for only refund of money.

Subsequently, the respondents filed an application for amendment of statement of claim and raised the pleas that an additional amount of Rs.1 crore was paid. Admittedly, the said amount was not mentioned in the original statement of claim since it was set off. The said application was allowed. No evidence was led by the parties after amendment.

9. On 4th March, 2015, the Arbitrator passed the award directing the petitioners to refund the amount along with interest @ 14.6% and future interest @ 18% and held that the petitioners are at fault and further held that the alleged amount of Rs.1 Crore in cash was paid to the petitioners.

10. The said award was challenged by the petitioners inter alia, mainly, on two grounds; firstly, the petitioner No.2 never received a sum of Rs.1 crore in cash allegedly paid by the respondent No.1 on 3rd June, 2013 as an additional amount and the Arbitral Tribunal arded the said amount without any valid reason and evidence, thus its findings are perversed and illo