1. The petitioners seek to challenge the award, dated 02.11.2016 passed by the second respondent herein / Arbitrator, under which the second respondent has ordered the payment of Rs.11,03,507/- and also allotment of car park to the first respondent herein (claimant before the Arbitral Tribunal), by the petitioners herein (respondents before the Arbitral Tribunal) within 10 days of the award, and further to attend to the leakages in the building till an association is formed, as per Clause 13 of the sale agreement between the parties.

2. The first respondent herein is hereinafter referred to as purchaser and the petitioners herein are referred to as vendors.

Brief facts:-

3. The vendors are the builders, who have developed a residential apartment complex by name, Purva Swanlake, in about 10.32 acres in Padur and Kelambakkam Villages, Chengalpattu Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The first respondent herein was one of the purchasers of a residential flat from the vendors. The purchaser alleged deficiencies in the construction of flats and had raised several allegations including delayed construction, with the vendors. The vendors and the purchaser had several correspondence on the above issues.

3.1. According to the vendors, the purchaser and her husband have acted against them by making scurrilous and defamatory allegations. These acts resulted in institution of a Civil Suit by the vendors seeking to restrain the purchaser and others from preventing, stopping or blocking workers or prospective customers from visiting the site or stop them from doing their routine work, etc., The learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu, was pleased to grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the purchaser, her husband and others, in terms of the above prayer, which is still in force.

3.2. Thereafter, the purchaser had filed the Arbitration Claim, as per Clause 33 of the Construction Agreement dated 20.02.2014. The parties, thereafter, appointed the second respondent as a sole arbitrator to decide the reference and the proceedings thereof have culminated in the impugned order, dated 02.11.2016.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the vendors submitted that as per clauses V(1) and V(9) of the Construction Agreement, dated 20.02.2014, the vendors had to deliver the apartment on or before 31.10.2014, however, the apartment was delivered and possession was taken by the purchaser on 28.11.2014 (with a delay of 28 days).

4.1. The learned counsel for the vendors further submitted that the award passed by the learned Arbitrator is clearly outside the purview of the contract and the rejection of the terms of the contract is against the public policy, as laid down by the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court; hence, the award deserves to be set-aside and the above petition has to be allowed with costs.

4.2. Apart from the above, the learned counsel for the vendors also raised contentions challenging the award with regard to: (i) discarding of contract clauses; (ii) failure to consider evidence presented; (iii) failure to consider the pleadings; (iv) failure to consider material documents; (v) misapplication of law; (vi) placing reliance on the post reference correspondences; (vii) rewriting of the contract; and (viii) awarding damages when there is no proof of actual loss.

4.3. In support of the said contentions, the learned counsel for the vendors relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) If the arbitrator ignores the terms of the contract and awards the amount despite the prohibition in the agreement, the award would be arbitrary, capricious and without jurisdiction (1998) (8) SCC 122 (Steel Authority of India v. J.C.Budharaja).

(ii) While it is true that the Courts show deference to the findings of fact recorded by the arbitrators and even opinions, if any, expressed, yet it is equally true that the arbitrators have no jurisdiction to make an award against the specific terms of the contract executed between the parties (2010) 8 SCC 563 (Rashtriya Chemicals v. C