The court upheld the arbitral award, ruling that grounds for intervention under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act were not met, affirming the tribunal's discretion and findings based on evidence submitted.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, the "Act"] impugning the Award dated 19th March, 2020 passed by a Sole Arbitrator appointed for adjudicating disputes arising out of an `Agreement for Development' dated 1st July, 2015 executed between the Respondent-M/s Grand Reality Pvt. Ltd. (Claimant in arbitration) and the Petitioner herein - Shri Nanak Mehta (Respondent in arbitration) for construction of Country Homes/Villas on agricultural land (admeasuring 15 Bighas and 4 Biswas) - bearing Khasra Nos. 113/23/2 (5-12), 24 (4-16), 25/1 (2.08), 25/2 (2-08) situated in Village Bijwasan, Tehsil Vasant Vihar, New Delhi [hereinafter, "Agreement"].

2. Owing to disputes between the parties, Petitioner terminated the afore-noted Agreement vide notice dated 19th March, 2018. This was followed by a notice of termination dated 3rd April, 2018 issued by Respondent as well. An Arbitral Tribunal was constituted with the consent of parties, vide order dated 6th September, 2018 passed in petition under Section 9 being O.M.P. (I) (COMM) 309/2018. In this proceeding, the Court vide Order dated 1st August, 2018, had restrained the Petitioner from creating any third-party interest(s) or parting with the possession of the subject land, till such time he deposits a sum of Rs. 2.05 Crores with the Registry of this Court, in the form of a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR). The said sum was duly deposited by the Petitioner, as recorded in the Order dated 6th September, 2018.

3. In arbitration, the Respondent herein sought a refund of the principal amount of Rs. 2,04,85,000/- (including payment of Rs. 84,50,000/- paid directly to the Bank at the behest of the Petitioner) with interest, which had been paid under the Agreement to the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed a statement of defence and contested the claims. On the basis of evidence led before the Arbitral Tribunal, the impugned Award was passed in favour of the Respondent, directing Petitioner to pay to the Respondent a sum of Rs. 2,04,85,000/-, along with interest accrued, from the proceeds of the FDR.

4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid award, Petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant petition.

5. Mr. N.P. Singh, counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the learned Arbitrator has given an award that is contrary to the terms of the Agreement, and therefore, the same is in conflict with the "most basic notions of morality or justice", [Under Section 34 (2)(b) Explanation 1 (iii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.] on the following grounds:

5.1. The impugned Award has been rendered in respect of an issue which was not the subject-matter of the Agreement.

5.2. Reasons given by the Arbitrator are neither just nor equitable. In fact, the same are not even plausible and defy logic and would shock the conscience of the Court.

5.3 The Award is perverse, contrary to record and based on a selective reading of evidence and is de hors the documents/evidence available on record.

5.4. The reasons given by the learned Arbitrator for considering the amount of Rs. 90,000/- as part of payments under the agreement are neither just nor equitable - as the said amounts were paid prior to execution of the Agreement; are not reflected in the Agreement itself; and as such, cannot be considered as money paid by Respondent to Petitioner.

5.5. The Award deserves to be set aside in as much as it fails to take into account the fraud played by Respondent, in connivance with the father of the Petitioner.

5.6. Besides, the Respondent also committed a breach of the Agreement by failing to make payment to Petitioner of Rs. 1.50 Crores by 31st March, 2016 and balance payment of the security deposit by 07th April, 2016. This prevented the Petitioner from getting title deeds of the property released from the bank.

5.7. The application under Section 27 of the Act filed before the Tribunal