Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
G.S. Sistani, Jyoti Singh, JJ.
Jitender Rajpal and Another – Appellants
Versus
Ansal Properties and Infrastructure Ltd. – Respondent
First Appeal From Order (Os)(Comm) No. 28 of 2019, 29 of 2019, 31 of 2019
Decided On : 13-02-2019
Arbitration & Conciliation Act - Appeals against impugned orders - Sections 34 & 37 - [Arbitration & Conciliation Act] - [Section 37] - [Section 34] - The court dismissed the appeals against the impugned orders dated 17.12.2018 and 21.12.2018, holding that the findings of fact and law of the arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal are not amenable to interference under Sections 34 or 37 of the Act. The court emphasized that the scope of interference is limited and the arbitrator is the final arbiter on facts and law, and even errors, factual or legal, which stop short of perversity, do not merit interference under Sections 34 or 37 of the Act. The court also highlighted the need for judicial restraint and awareness that the process is removed from appellate review, and that arbitration aims to avoid the prolix and lengthy process of the courts, preserving the expediency and finality offered by arbitration.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants applied for allotment of shops in a shopping mall. The respondent failed to deliver possession and transfer the booking of the shops within the stipulated time period. Disputes arose, and the appellants demanded appointment of an arbitrator. The arbitrator awarded a refund of the principal amount and interest, which was partially challenged by the appellants under Section 34 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the appeals and dismissed them, emphasizing that the findings of fact and law of the arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal are not amenable to interference under Sections 34 or 37 of the Act.
Issues: The issues revolved around the failure of the respondent to deliver possession and transfer the booking of the shops within the stipulated time period, the award of the arbitrator, and the challenge under Section 34 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the scope of interference under Sections 34 and 37 of the Act is limited, and the findings of fact and law of the arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal are not amenable to judicial scrutiny and interference. The court highlighted the need for judicial restraint and the preservation of the expediency and finality offered by arbitration.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals and emphasized that the findings of fact and law of the arbitrator/Arbitral Tribunal are not amenable to interference under Sections 34 or 37 of the Act.
G.S. Sistani, J.
Cm.Appl 6658/2019 (Exemption) in FAO(OS) (COMM) 28/2019
CM.APPL 6660/2019 (Exemption) in FAO(OS) (COMM) 29/2019
CM.APPL 6664/2019 (Exemption) in FAO(OS) (COMM) 31/2019
Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The applications stand disposed of.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 28/2019 & CM. APPL6659/2019
FAO(OS) (COMM) 29/2019 & CM. APPL6661/2019
FAO(OS) (COMM) 31/2019 & CM. APPL6663/2019
3. These appeals have been filed by the appellants under Section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the impugned orders dated 17.12.2018 in (FAO(OS)(COMM) 28/2019 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 29/2019) and 21.12.2018 (FAO(OS)(COMM) 31/2019), whereby the learned Single Judges have dismissed the appellants' petitions under Section 34 of the Act challenging the impugned award dated 27.07.2018.
4. For the sake of convenience, we dispose of all these three appeals by a common order.
5. Since FAO(OS)(COMM) 28/2019 and FAO(OS)(COMM) 29/2019 are filed against the common impugned order of the learned Single Judge, the facts of FAO(OS)(COMM) 28/2019 are being considered for disposal of these appeals. However, the facts of FAO(OS) (COMM) 31/2019 are distinguished and the same is being dealt separately.
FAO(OS) (COMM) 28/2019 & CM. APPL6659/2019
FAO(OS) (COMM) 29/2019 & CM. APPL6661/2019
6. The necessary facts required to be noticed for disposal of the present appeals are as under:
7. The respondent (developer) in the year 2007 advertised for sale of under construction shops in a shopping mall, the 'Boulevard' situated at Ludhiana, Punjab. The appellants applied for allotment of four shops in the said shopping mall for running hosiery business. Pursuant to which, Sh. Deepak Sachdeva (respondent) issued allotment letters dated 22.09.2007 containing the detailed terms and conditions of the said allotment. As per the allotment letters, the ground floor shops were priced @ Rs.15,500/- per sq. ft. and all the first floor shops were priced @ Rs.13,000/- per sq. ft. The appellants booked total super area of 1668 sq. ft. at first floor and 360 sq. ft. at the ground floor respectively. The respondent received payment for the said allotment partly in cash and partly through cheque. The appellants opted for construction laying plan as prescribed in the agreement letter dated 22.09.2017 thereby computing the total consideration for all the fours shops @ Rs.2,72,64,000/-. As per the appellants, the respondent has received Rs.1,55,70,000/- as cash payment at the time of booking and the remaining amount of Rs.89,60,956/- by way of various instalments through cheques/cash with respect to all the four shops. As per clause 11 of the agreement, the respondent was under an obligation to deliver the peaceful possession of the shops within the stipulated period of three years from the date of such allotment, which the respondent failed to comply with. In order to affect the conveyance of the shops, the respondent was required to obtain a power of attorney from the owner of the land on which the proposed mall was advertised to be constructed. It is the grievance of the appellants that even after paying the amount as per the agreement, the appellants received four letters from the respondent by which the respondent demanded the appellants to pay an additional sum of Rs.1.20 crore (approx.) within a fortnight. Pursuant to the said claim, the appellants raised their grievance with the respondent. The respondent thereupon promised to revise the letter of demand and thereby delivering physical possession of the land. Meanwhile, the actual owner of the land Sh. Naveen Talwar filed a petition under Section 11 of the Act for appointment of an arbitrator. On 12.10.2012, the Punjab & Haryana High Court appointed Mr. N.K. Sodhi, Chief Justice (Retd.) as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the parties, since th
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
