IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference by the court under Section 34 of the Act, emphasizing that the court cannot re-appreciate evidence or reassess factual aspects of the case.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Section 11 of the Commercial Acts, 2015 impugns the order dated 15.07.2020 passed by the learned Commercial Court, Delhi whereby the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act against the Arbitral Award dated 20.02.2019, has been dismissed.

2. Vide impugned judgment/ Award, the appellants have been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- along with interest @ 24% per annum from 15.07.2018 till the date of filing of the statement of claim i.e. 20.12.2018. It further directs the appellants to pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000 per month w.e.f. 10.03.2015 along with interest @ 24% per annum from the date it became due and payable till the cancellation of Memorandum of Understanding i.e., 15.07. 2018. Besides, cost of Rs. 2,00,000/- as well as pendente-lite and future interest @ 12% per annum has also been awarded.

3. Pursuant to dismissal of Objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act, the appellants vide Order dated 10.02.2021, under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"), were directed by this Court to deposit 50% of the principal amount with the Registrar General of this Court and for the remaining amount to furnish an unconditional undertaking to deposit the sum subject to outcome of the present appeal. Against the aforesaid Order dated 10.02.2021, the appellants had preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4357/2021. However, the SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.03.2021 observing that order dated 10.02.2021 called for no interference.

4. Succinctly noting the facts of the present appeal as have been narrated by the appellants, are that appellant No.1 -Company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and appellant nos.2 & 3 are its directors who are responsible for its day-to-day affairs. The appellant nos.2 & 3 have alleged that they sought financial assistance from S. Parminder Pal Singh Bedi, Director of respondent company- M/s Gunocean Inc to run a hotel, namely, Hotel Clarks Inn Arjun located at Scheme No.1, SCF, 28-29-30, Hargobind Nagar, Phagwara, District Kapurthala, Punjab, promoted by them. The respondent on various representations being made by appellant nos.2 & 3 agreed and paid Rs. 75,00,000/- to respondent so that the project would be completed.

5. The Memorandum of Understanding was executed between the parties on 24.01.2015 according to which respondent was to receive 5% commission of the total gross sale with a minimum guarantee of Rs. 1,50,000/- per month irrespective of the accruals. It was further agreed that principal amount invested by respondent-firm would be refunded at the time of termination of Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") for any other reason as mentioned in body of the MoU. However, the respondent alleged that the appellants after receiving the amounts started defaulting payments to be made as per the MoU entered between them. The respondent alleged that appellants had started committing defaults in the payment of assured amount as per MOU dated 24.01.2015. The respondent alleged that even though they advanced a sum of Rs. 46,83,319/- to appellant No.1 which was duly acknowledged by appellant Nos.2 & 3 prior to 24.01.2015, however, the appellants after receiving the amounts started defaulting in the payment to be made as per MOU. The respondent sent a legal notice dated 07.09.2017 to the appellants demanding a sum of Rs. 2,63,34,422/- which included principal amount of Rs. 1,21,83,319/-. The respondent alleged that appellant Nos.1 & 2 avoided to receive the said notice, however, it was received by respondent No.3 who also sent a reply and sought various documents.

6. Thereafter, respondent issued another Notice dated 11.11.2017 to the appellants stating that in case payments were not made, they shall invoke arbitrati