1. - This arbitration application is arising out of an agreement dated 21.5.2004 (Annexure-C) executed between the Applicant and the Non-applicant, containing arbitration clause 8.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, are that the Applicant-Purchaser Aeren R.Entertainment Pvt.Ltd. (formerly known as "Samurai Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.) entered into an agreement dated 21.5.2004 (Annexure-C) with the Non-applicant-Seller National Engineering Industries Ltd. with regard to the sale of land admeasuring 17.05 Acres (70,809 Sq.Meters) but at the site, the land admeasured only 66,838 Sq.Meters, which is the subject matter of the aforesaid agreement to sell, situated in Khasra No.118 at Village Manpur Devri, Tonk Road, Jaipur, for a total consideration of Rs. 20,05,15,000/- under Clause 1 of the said agreement and further contains Clauses 2 to 9 and preceding to it there are ten opening paras, out of which in opening para No.6, there is clear mention of the pendency of the writ petition against the order of the Board of Revenue dated 24.3.2004 passed in second appeal. Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 11 lacs have been paid as advance money as per Clause No.2 and further, as per Clause No.(3), Rs. 19,94,15,000/- has been agreed to be paid by the Purchaser to the Seller as per the details given below Clause 3 regarding payment of Rs. 9,97,07,500/- and in Clause 4, the details of the payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 9,97,07,500/- have been given, as mentioned in sub clauses (i) to (iv) of Clause 4 out of which, as per sub clauses (i) and (ii) of Clause 4, the Seller shall sell, transfer and convey all its ownership and beneficial rights and interests in the property in favour of the purchaser by virtue of the Deed of Transfer / Deed of Sale / Conveyance Deed, as the case may be, and as per sub-clause (ii), the actual vacant possession of the property was to be handed over by the Seller to the Purchaser. It is also pertinent to mention here that the Applicant by its earlier name "Samurai Entertainment Pvt.Ltd." has been referred in the agreement dated 21.5.2004 as the "Purchaser" and the Non-applicant National Engineering Industries Ltd. has been referred as the "Seller".

3. The arbitration application has been filed by the Applicant by referring itself as the "Purchaser" and the Non-applicant as the "Seller", therefore, for the sake of convenience, the Applicant is referred as the 'Purchaser' and the Non-applicant as the 'Seller' in this order.

4. The Applicant has further stated in the arbitration application that the agreement is a contingent contract and based on happening of contingencies recorded in the agreement dated 21.5.2004 and their performance / discharge of obligations by the parties. The Seller made all efforts to get clearance from the revenue department. The Seller in its letter dated 23.5.2005 (Anx.D) took the stand that the agreement is frustrated and incapable of performance and categorically repudiated, which was denied by the Purchaser on 11.6.2005 (Anx.E). The same allegations have been repeated by the Seller (Non-applicant) in his earlier letter dated 10.6.2005 and has also sent a cheque No.023489 dated 10.7.2005 drawn on ICICI Bank Ltd. in lieu of the advance amount already received by the Seller (Annexure-F). On receipt of the letter dated 10.6.2005, the Non-applicant vide its letter dated 11.6.2005 (Anx.G) stated that there is no question of agreement dated 21.5.2004 frustrated or incapable of performance and there is no question for your company being entitled to return the advance. Similar correspondence between the parties on subsequent dates took place. However, it is relevant to mention here that the Purchaser (Applicant) has referred in the opening para 6 of the agreement dated 21.5.2004 wherein the appeal before the Collector and second appeal before the Board of Revenue culminated into an order against which the Seller has filed writ petition challenging the order dated 24.3.2004 o