JUDGMENT :

1. The Petitioner/Decree Holder has approached this Court by filing the present petition for enforcement of the Award dated 06.07.2018 passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in Arbitration Case No.3/2016 titled as BDR Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Mahamaya Exports Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

2. The facts in brief as stated by the Petitioner/Decree Holder in the present execution petition are as follows:-

i. It is stated that agreements were entered into between the Petitioner/Decree Holder/Purchaser and the Judgment Debtor/Respondent as sellers of Floor Space Index (FSI) of 2,15,000 sq. ft. in the project of the Judgment Debtor on its land in Sector 63A, Gurgaon, Haryana.

ii. It is stated that a sum of Rs.29 crores were paid by the Decree Holder to the Judgment Debtor. It is the case of the Decree Holder that since the Judgment Debtor did not take necessary steps in terms of the Agreement dated 29.06.2015, a legal notice dated 12.07.2016 was issued by the Petitioner. Thereafter, arbitration proceedings were initiated by the Petitioner appointing Mr. S. K. Tandon, former ADJ, Delhi as the Sole Arbitrator. An Award dated 06.07.2018 was passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator directing the Respondent to pay a sum of Rs.29 crores to the Petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum from 29.06.2015 along with costs.

iii. It is stated that till 29.12.2018, when this petition was filed, a sum of Rs.47,52,00,000/- was due and payable by the Judgment Debtor.

iv. The Award was challenged by the Judgment Debtor by filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act being OMP(COMM) 338/2022. However, the said challenge was filed with a delay of more than 1450 days. The said delay was not condoned as the challenge to the Award was filed by the Judgment Debtor beyond the maximum period as prescribed under Section 34(3) and this Court vide Order dated 09.04.2024, dismissed the same on the ground of delay alone.

v. The present petition has therefore been filed for execution of the said Award.

3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the Judgment Debtor stating that since the appointment of the Arbitrator is unilateral in nature, the same is hit by the Judgment of the Apex Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. V. HSCC (India) Ltd., (2020) 20 SCC 760 and the Judgment passed by the five Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification (CORE) v. ECI SPIC SMO MCML (JV) A Joint Venture Co., (2025) 4 SCC 641, wherein it has been categorically held that any clause allowing any of the parties to unilaterally appoint the arbitrator is in violation of the principles of equality and gives rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrator and such a clause hinders equal participation of the other party and therefore the same cannot be permitted.

4. At this juncture it is necessary to refer to the procedure adopted by the Petitioner/Decree Holder in the facts of this case.

5. Material on record indicates that a legal notice dated 12.07.2016 had been issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent stating that the Respondent approached the Petitioner stating that the Respondent is the absolute owner in possession of certain lands measuring 14.025 acres forming part of the revenue estate of Village Khadarpur, Tehsil Sohna, Haryana and that the Director of Town & Country Planning, Haryana as forming part of Urban Sector 63A, Gurgaon-Manesar, Urban Complex, Haryana and that the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, after completion of formalities and payment of necessary license fee and other charges, had granted the Letter of Intent dated 22.07.2014 and the License Dated 06.08.2014 to the Respondent for developing a residential group housing on the said lands.

6. It is stated that acting on the said representation by the Respondent, the Petitioner had agreed to purchase the said land for developing the project. The legal notice indicates that contrary to the representa