Parties to a collaboration agreement are accountable for adherence to agreed terms; unauthorized deviations may invoke liability for damages arising from resultant legal complications and emotional distress.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Mahajan, J. This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short `the Act') is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP (COMM.) 178/2018, whereby the learned single judge has partially modified the award to the extent that amount awarded in favor of the respondent under Claim (A) was set aside and the amount awarded under Claim (B) was restricted to Rs.35,000/- per month for the period from May 2006 to 11.05.2007 along with interest as awarded by the learned Arbitrator. The remaining directions in the impugned award were upheld.

2. While entering into the facts and circumstances related to the controversy involved in the present appeal, it would be profitable to recapitulate the background and set up in which the dispute arose between the parties. The respondent (claimant before the learned arbitrator) being the absolute owner of the property bearing no. A-2/5 admeasuring 450 sq. yards, situated at Model Town, Delhi, entered into the Collaboration Agreement with the appellant on 03.05.2005, where under it was agreed that the existing structure of the aforesaid property would be demolished and a new building would be raised in conformity with the sanctioned plan and as per the specification which were mutually discussed, agreed upon and reduced into writing.

3. Since one of the argument raised by the appellant before us is that the two collaboration agreements filed by the respondent-claimant before the learned arbitrator are forged and fabricated whereas the one filed by the appellant is genuine, it is apt to deal with this argument at the outset to dispel the doubt created as regard the authenticity of collaboration agreements. It is noticed from the record that three different collaboration agreements were filed and exhibited before the learned arbitrator. Two collaborations agreements i.e. Ex.CW1/2 and Ex. CW1/C were filed by the respondent-claimant; whereas Ex. RW6/A was filed by the appellant. The learned arbitrator has recorded that the appellant had in his cross examination admitted that he had signed every page of Ex. CW-1/C and further admitted his signatures on the cuttings/corrections made thereon except the cutting/correction made at point `A'. The appellant had also stated that the signatures at point `B' appeared to be his but he had not signed the same. Thereafter, the learned arbitrator compared the admitted signatures of the appellant with those appearing at the cuttings/corrections and the same were found to tally with one another. The learned arbitrator has thus, concluded that once the appellant had admitted his signatures on Ex. CW-1/C, it did not lie in the mouth of the appellant to say that Ex.CW-1/C as filed by the respondent-claimant was a forged and fabricated document. The said findings of the learned arbitrator do not call for any interference as the view taken by the learned arbitrator is a possible view of the evidence on record. The relevant findings of the learned arbitrator in this regard reads as under:

"11. It is undisputed case of the parties that claimant being owner of the subject property entered into a collaboration agreement with the respondent for redevelopment and reconstruction of the property. However, there are three collaboration agreements available on record - two agreement Ex. CW1/2 and Ex, CW 1/C filed by the claimant and Ex. R