The main legal point established is that the court will uphold an arbitrator's award based on the terms of the agreement and may modify the award to align with the agreement.

Prathiba M. Singh, J.

The present petition arises out of award dated 21st October, 2013 passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator. The disputes arose out of agreement dated 9th April, 2010 by which the Petitioner Sh. Vinod Seth agreed to construct on the property of Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Bayana, i.e., property bearing no. 40, Block F-1U, Pitampura, Delhi. As per the agreement, the builder had to construct "1/3rd parking plus 2/3rd basement with water proofing work, upper ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor with all the fittings and furniture as per A-class construction." In lieu thereof, the builder was to retain the second floor of the property. The builder had to pay a total sum of Rs.64 lakhs, in addition, in three separate instalments. The time period given for carrying out the construction was 12 months or earlier along with a grace period of two months. Subsequently, the owner would be entitled to Rs.10,000/- per day as penalty. As per clause 13 of the agreement, if the owner breaches the agreement, he was to refund double of the earnest money. If the builder breached the agreement, the earnest money and the compensation amount was to be forfeited by the owner.

2. The building plan for the property was sanctioned on 31st December, 2010 and extension of 3 to 4 months was given by the owner. In August, 2011, disputes arose between the parties and on 11th November, 2011, the owner terminated the contract. Vide letter dated 13th January, 2012, the owner forfeited the earnest money and also called upon the builder to pay a sum of Rs.55 lakhs.

3. A petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 came to be filed before this Court and on 18th May, 2012, the owner was restrained from alienating, disposing of or dealing with or creating any third party interest in respect of the second floor.

4. An application for vacation of stay was moved by the owner which was heard on 21st September, 2012. On the said date, the Ld. Single Judge of this Court referred the disputes to arbitration by the sole Arbitrator and the interim order was modified. The said order is extracted herein below :

"1. This a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act") filed by the Petitioner, Mr. Vinod Seth, ("Builder") against the Respondents, Mr. Sudershan Kumar Bhayana and Smt. Kiran Bhayana, who in the agreement dated 9th April 2010 are described as the joint owners of a property bearing No. 40, Block F1U, measuring 242 sq. yards, Pitampura, Delhi " 110034 ("the property in question").

2. In terms of the said agreement, after demolishing the existing structure, the Builder was to construct 1/3rd parking plus 2/3 basement with guiniting work (water proofing), upper ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor with all fittings, fixture and finishing work as per A class construction. The Builder was to pay the Respondents a sum of Rs. 64 lakhs in the manner as set out in para 4 of the agreement. The Builder was entitled to get the rights of second floor, without roof right and without possession, for which the sale deed was to be registered separately.

3. With disputes arising between the parties, the Builder invoked the arbitration clause by sending a notice on 26th December 2011 to the Respondents.

4. When the present petition was listed on 18th May 2012 this Court restrained the Respondents from changing the existing position of the structures on the property in question and directed them to maintain status quo as regards title and possession. Thereafter, the Respondents filed IA No. 11098 of 2012 for vacating the interim order. The parties? efforts at settlement through mediation were not successful.

5. Learned counsel for the parties state that the parties are agreed that the disputes could be referred to an Arbitrator appointed by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the Respondents states, on instructions, that without prejudice to their rights and contentions, the Respondents