I.A. Ansari, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act of 1996') against the order, dated 24.2.2009, passed, in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 103/2009, by the learned District Judge, Kamrup.

2. The material facts and various stages, which have given rise to the present appeal, may, in brief, be set out as under:

(i) The applicant-respondent heroin, which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, filed an application under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, the case of the applicant-respondent being, in brief, thus:

(a) The opposite party, (i.e., the appellants herein) are companies, registered under the Companies Act. The appellants approached the respondent to enter into a joint venture agreement with the respondent on the basis of their representation that the appellants were joint owners of the suit land, they had been in actual physical possession of suit land, some portions of the suit land were under the possession of a third party, who has a small marble godown under the appellants, but is willing to vacate the same and handover the possession thereof to the appellants. The respondent has taken a decision to develop the suit land into a multi-purpose complex by way of joint venture agreement as aforesaid. In this joint venture, the share of the appellants would be 45% of the constructed area and the sole obligation and responsibility of the appellants would be to give vacant possession of the suit land to the respondent for the purpose of construction thereon. A concluded contract, thus, came into existence between the respondent and the present appellants. On 15.6.2006, the respondent, on the one hand, as developer, and one Mr P.D. Deorah, the common director of the two appellant-companies, as owner, executed an agreement, in writing, in the form of term sheet, whereby and where under the parties had finalised the broad terms and conditions of the joint venture for construction of multipurpose complex on the suit land. By means of four cheques, applicant-respondent, in discharge of its obligation under the term sheet, dated 15.6.2006, paid rupees twenty lakh in favour of the present appellants as part payment of the security deposit. The payment, so made, was acknowledged by the appellants. On 15.6.2006, the respondent also paid a further sum of rupees five lakh, by two cheques, in favour of the appellants, towards part payment of cost for obtaining sanction in terms of the agreement. In or about first week of December 2007, the respondent was informed by the appellants that Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority had issued no objection certificate to the appellants for construction over the suit land. Soon after issuance of the NOC, appellant No. 2, under its letter, dated 4.10.2008, requested the respondent to make further disbursement of a sum of rupees fifteen lakh as shifting charges with a request to transmit the same to their bank account. Pursuant to such instructions given by the appellants, the respondent paid a sum of rupees fifteen lakh to the appellants by way of a cheque on 8.1.2008. On 4.3.2008, a Memorandum of Understanding ('MoU') was signed between the parties concerned, whereunder the appellants acknowledged the payment received from the respondent under the agreement, dated 15.6.2008, and also agreed to take necessary steps for removal of the said marble godown. The appellants also, in terms of the MoU, were to get removed and vacated 7/8 sheds standing on the Zoo Road, which fall outside the suit land.

(b) By a facsimile message, dated 1.7.2008, the appellants demanded a sum of rupees twenty-one lakh from the respondent on the ground that the occupants of the suit land had agreed to vacate the occupied portion of the suit land in favour of the appellants for consideration of rupees twenty-one lakh. Believing in the representation so made, the respondent forwarded a cheque of rupees twenty-one lakh under a covered letter,