JUDGMENT :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

The instant petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Section 10 of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act , 2015 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:—

“(a) Set aside the award dated 30th September 2019 passed by Ld. Sole Arbitrator Justice Manmohan Sarin (Retd.), titled as “Sunny Talwani v. Seema Gupta”;

(b) The record may be summoned from the Ld. Arbitrator; and/or

(c) Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of the justice may be granted to the Petitioner.”

BACKGROUND

2. A perusal of the record reveals that the following course of events has led to the filing of the instant petition:—

a. The disputes and controversy that are before this Court are stemming out of financial relations between the husband of the petitioner and one Surinder Wadhwa and his associates. Transactions, primarily in the nature of financial loans, were being carried out between the said persons to this effect by the personal accounts of the petitioner and her family with Surinder Wadhwa, his associates and family members.

b. An Agreement to Sell dated 26th October 2015 was purported to be executed between the petitioner and claimant/respondent, an associate of Surinder Wadhwa, for sale of property bearing Mustail No. 3 Killa Nos. 21/1 (1-14), 21/2 Min (1-4) situated in the revenue estate of Village Jonapur, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi. The case of the petitioner is that the said Agreement to Sell came to her knowledge only upon receiving the letter dated 14th March 2017 and that she had never executed the same. The petitioner denied even the existence of the said Agreement, through her husband.

c. Subsequently, a complaint dated 10th April 2017 was lodged with the Joint Commissioner of Police (South), Delhi Police, by the husband of the petitioner against Surinder Wadhwa against Surinder Wadhwa for offences of cheating, criminal conspiracy, criminal breach of trust, amongst others.

d. The respondent approached this Court for the appointment of an arbitrator for adjudication of the disputes which arose between the parties seeking specific performance of the purported Agreement to Sell dated 26th October 2015. Accordingly, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Arb. P. No. 402/2017 vide its order dated 2nd November 2017 appointed the learned Sole Arbitrator.

e. The arbitration proceedings were initiated amongst the parties and upon conclusion of the arbitration proceedings, the Award dated 30th September 2019 came to be passed by the learned Arbitrator.

f. The complaint lodged on by the husband of the petitioner against Surinder Wadhwa and his associates came to be registered as an FIR bearing No. 0027 dated 7th February 2018 for offences under Section 420 , 406, 467, 471 and 120B of the Penal Code, 1860, during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings.

g. Vide the Award dated 30th September 2019 the learned Arbitrator had granted the reliefs partly in the favour of the respondent herein, the relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:—

Relief of Specific Performance:

……..

In view of the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme court directly applicable to the case, I have not considered it necessary to advert to other judgments cited by the Claimant and Respondent. It is therefore held that the Claimant is not disentitled to the relief of decree of Specific Performance merely on the ground of absence of communication for the period of 11 months during which time he was following up and making efforts with the Respondent for completing the sale and not resort to litig