Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The present petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereafter the “Act”) impugning the arbitral award dated 30.01.2017 (hereafter the “impugned award”). The impugned award was rendered in the context of disputes that had arisen in connection with the collaboration agreement dated 13.04.1993 (hereafter 'the Agreement”) entered into by Mr. Satish Kumar Bajaj (since deceased) (hereafter referred to as “Satish”), Mr. Harish Bajaj (hereafter referred to as “Harish”), Kumar Trading Corporation (hereafter “the Firm”) and M/s M. M. Builders (hereafter “the Builder”). The Agreement was entered into for the purposes of development of an industrial plot measuring 888 sq. yards bearing no.1/2, Industrial Area, Najafgarh Road, Kirti Nagar, New Delhli (hereafter “the property”).

2. In terms of the Agreement, the Builder was to construct a building consisting of a maximum of 5 floors at its own cost subject to sanction of building plan from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD). The said building was to comprise of shops and office premises. In terms of the Agreement, 50% of the built-up area was to be divided between the Firm, Harish and Satish. The Firm would own 25% of the total built-up area and the balance 25% would be shared in equal proportion between Satish and Harish.

3. The Builder has filed the present petition [OMP(COMM.) 243/2017] assailing the impugned award to the limited extent that the arbitral tribunal has not allowed its claim for specific performance of the Agreement even though it is held that the Agreement was valid and Harish was in breach of his obligations. The Firm and its partner, Mr. Parvesh Bajaj has also challenged the impugned award [in OMP (Comm.) 245/2017 ] to the extent that its counterclaims have been rejected by the arbitral tribunal and also to the extent that the arbitral tribunal has not granted specific performance of the Agreement.

4. The principal controversy to be addressed in the present matters is whether the decision of the arbitral tribunal to reject the Builder’s claim for specific performance of the Agreement is perverse, patently illegal or otherwise unsustainable. The second question to be examined is whether the arbitral tribunal has grossly erred in rejecting the counterclaims raised by the Firm and Mr. Parvesh Bajaj.

5. The brief facts necessary to address the aforesaid controversy are as under:-

5.1 Harish, Satish (since deceased) and Mr. Parvesh Bajaj (hereafter “Parvesh”) were brothers and sons of Des Raj Bajaj (since deceased) (hereafter “the father”). The property is a piece of industrial land and was leased by L&DO to Satish and Harish. The father and Parvesh were the constituent partners of the Firm, which was a tenant of the property. On 12.02.1993, Harish and Satish executed a General Power of Attorney (hereafter “the GPA”) in favour of the father authorizing him to negotiate with builders and developers for construction of a multi-storey building on the property and also to enter into a settlement with the Firm for handing over vacant and peaceful possession of the property for the purposes of development.

5.2 On 13.04.1993, the father (in his capacity as the constituted attorney of Satish and Harish) entered into the Agreement with the Builder for development of the property. He and Parvesh also signed the Agreement on behalf of the Firm as a “Confirming Party”. As stated earlier, in terms of the Agreement, the Builder was to construct a building which was to be divided in equal proportion between the Builder and the Bajaj family, (Satish, Harish and the Firm constituted by the father and Parvesh). In this manner each of the four members of the Bajaj family, namely, the father, Parvesh, Harish and Satish would acquire 1/8th share of the developed property individually while the Builder would acquire half of the property. In terms of the Agreement, the Builder also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- to