The scope of judicial review of an arbitral award is limited. The Court will not interfere with an arbitral award unless it is patently illegal, in contravention of the fundamental policy of India, or based on no evidence.

JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

The present petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeks to challenge the impugned Award dated 4th October 2018 to the extent that the registered Agreement dated 23rd March 2001 for sale of immovable property has been held to be determinable in nature and therefore not enforceable. The petitioner has also contended that the impugned Award is beyond the scope of reference and jurisdiction of the Learned Arbitrator. It has been prayed as under:

“a). This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the award of the Learned Sole Arbitrator dated 04.10.2018 to the extent challenged above for the reasons and grounds mentioned above and this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to refer the matter to that extent for adjudication by way of arbitration as per the arbitration agreement between the parties, upon setting aside the award.

b). pass such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.

c). Costs of the present proceedings be award in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent.”

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The background of the case is that on 3rd June 1997, the respondent was allotted land in Plot No. 1, Sector 18, Electronic City, Gurgaon, Haryana admeasuring 1000 sq. meters by Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) and the petitioner on 17th March 1999 issued a letter offering the plot on lease to the petitioner. Between 20th February 1999 to 6th December 1999 various letters/mails were sent by the respondent to the petitioner for letting out the plot with entitlement to the petitioner to construct a building thereon, and with an option to purchase the plot subject to permission of law and on 14th February 2000, Power of Attorney was granted by the respondent to the petitioner and the Lease Deed was executed between the parties for a period of 20 years.

3. On 28th August 2000, the respondent obtained a Conveyance Deed dated 28th August 2000 from HUDA for 1000 sq. metres plot and later obtained a Conveyance Deed dated 24th March 2003 for an additional area of 200 sq. metres and on 10th December 2000, the respondent secured possession of the said plot measuring 1200 sq. metres from HUDA. The parties entered into an Agreement dated 23rd March 2001 as per the terms offered by the respondent and became effective from 1st June 2000.

4. In year 2002, the petitioner, having taken possession of the plot, constructed and completed building over the said plot and HUDA upon inspection of building in the year 2003 and after raising the receipt of demand with respect to compounding for deviation from sanctioned plans and FAR, granted and issued Occupation Certificate dated 1st September 2003.

5. On 27th July, 2006, upon expiry of six years of the term, the petitioner in writing elected and exercised the option vested and granted to it to purchase the property and offered to pay the agreed predetermined sale consideration.

6. The petitioner on 2nd January 2007, asked the respondent to discharge its obligation to convey the title. The same was asked by the petitioner again vide e-mails dated 29th March 2007, 3rd April 2007, 15th May 2007 and subsequently vide Notice dated 21st December 2007, notified that upon failure to discharge its obligation, Arbitration shall be invoked.

7. On 8th February 2008, the petitioner invoked Arbitration and called upon the named Arbitrator. The named Arbitrator, on 3rd April 2008, entered upon reference and first Arbitral hearing was held on 28th April 2008 wherein schedule for filing of pleadings and other directions were issued by the Learned Arbitrator.

8. On 28th May 2008, the petitioner filed a Statement of Claim seeking specific performance and enforcement of Agreement to Sell to which the respondent on 11th July 2009, filed its Statement of Defence and subsequently, rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 24th September 2008.

9. The respondent on 19th July 2011 filed an application before the Lear