Arbitration awards under Section 34 are upheld unless they contradict fundamental policies of Indian law or evidence patent illegality; acknowledgments of liability in balance sheets extend the limitation period.

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The Objection Petition, beingO.M.P.(COMM) 348/2024, has been filed under Section 34 of theArbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 , A&C Act, assailing theArbitral Award dated 22.04.2024, Impugned Award passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in the arbitration proceedings titled „Lord Vardhman Buildtech Private Limited v. SNG Developers Limited‟, whereby the Claimant/Respondent was awarded a sum of Rs. 7.50 Crores towards refund, along with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 10% per annum till the date of actual payment.

2. The Enforcement Petition, beingOMP(ENF.)(COMM.) 223/2024, has been filed by the Claimant/Decree Holder under Section 36 of the A&C Act, read with Order XXI Rules 10, 11, 13 and 41 and Section 151 of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 , CPC, seeking execution and enforcement of the aforesaid Arbitral Award passed in its favour.

3. For the sake of clarity and uniformity, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to in the same rank and nomenclature as adopted in the Objection Petition.

4. It is clarified that the Enforcement Petition is subject to the outcome of the Objection Petition, and in the event the Objection Petition is allowed, the Enforcement Petition shall consequently fail.

BRIEF FACTS:

5. The Petitioner is the owner of land bearing No. S-5001, freehold admeasuring approximately 5 acres, situated at Golf Link-I, Builders Area, P-8, Greater Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh, Subject land

6. During the years 2010-2011, after discussions between the parties regarding the development of the said land, a Collaboration Agreement dated 16.03.2010 was executed, under which the responsibility for obtaining the necessary approvals and undertaking construction was vested with the Respondent.

7. Subsequently, the Collaboration Agreement was superseded by an Agreement to Sell dated 05.04.2010, which in turn was superseded by another Agreement to Sell dated 04.04.2011.

8. Under the Agreement dated 04.04.2011, it was agreed that a portion of the land admeasuring 2.929 acres of the subject land would be sold to the Respondent for a total consideration of Rs. 7.50 Crores. 9. As per the said Agreement to Sell dated 04.04.2011, the date fixed for performance and payment of sale consideration was 20.05.2011, with a provision enabling deferment of execution of the sale deed, subject to certain conditions.

10. It is an admitted position between the parties that the Respondent paid an amount of Rs. 7.50 Crores to the Petitioner, in pursuance of an agreement dated 04.04.2011.

11. Thereafter, steps were taken in relation to the partition/bifurcation of the subject land. The proposal, in this regard, submitted before the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority was not approved.

12. On 13.05.2013, the Petitioner sent an email communication concerning the status of the transaction and the amount paid, whereby the Petitioner proposed a refund of the paid amount to the Respondent.

13. On 30.07.2018, the Respondent issued a notice invoking the Arbitration Clause contained in the Agreement to Sell 04.04.2011 and proposed the appointment of an arbitrator.

14. The Petitioner responded to the said notice on 23.08.2018, rejecting the proposal.

15. The Respondent thereafter approached this Court under Section 11 of the A&C Act, and vide Order dated 04.04.2019, this Court appointed Hon‟ble Mr. Justice B.D. Ahmed (Retd.), former Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir High Court, as the Arbitrator.

1