JUDGMENT :

(Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the Order dated 21.02.2021 made in IA No.2 and IA No.3 of 2019 in Arbitration Case No.5 of 2019 on the file of the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of the Sole Arbitrator Hon’ble Mr. Justice K Chandru Former Judge High Court of Madras.)

(This case was heard through Video Conferencing)

1. These Appeals have been filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (henceforth referred to as “Act”) challenging the order dated 21.02.2021 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in IA No.2 of 2019 and IA No.3 of 2019 in Arbitration No. 5 of 2019 under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, dismissing the Applications filed by the Appellant seeking the following reliefs:

a. the appointment of Government approved surveyor for the purpose of measuring the land in the presence of representatives of both the parties pertaining to the land covered under Phase I of the project measuring 15.780 Acres.

b. the appointment of Engineer Commissioner assisted by representatives from both the parties for assistance for the following purposes:

(i) to assess the claimant report dated 15.02.2016 submitted to the respondent for the purpose of verification about its veracity and make a detailed report on the issue of inferior quality, mismatch of grounds and in other relevant information required to arrive at the amenities not provided.

(ii) to identify such of those promises made in the sale brochure of the respondent/sale agreement and compare the same with the actual delivery

(iii) to get quotes from the market vendors for supply, installation and commissioning of amenities that have not been complied and submit the report within a period of 30 days from the date of order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal.

2. The Appellant is the claimant and the respondent is the respondent in the Arbitration. The Appellant/Flat Owners Association represents the interest of various flat owners who had purchased flats from the respondent who is a promoter and builder of flats. The case of the Appellant/Flat Owner Association is that there were several deficiencies in the flats purchased by the members of the Appellants Associations and a breach of contract was committed by the respondent which has been denied by the respondent. The dispute between the parties was referred to Arbitration by this Court and the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted. The Appellant in the Arbitration has claimed damages which has been quantified by them in terms of money and they have also sought for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from promoting the members of Olympia Sequel or any other third parties claiming right to interest through the respondent from accessing or using the common area or facilities or amenities exclusively belonging to the Appellant Association. Before the Tribunal, the respondent has filed their statement of defence denying their liability and they have also made a counter claim against the Appellant which has been quantified in terms of money. They have also sought for a permanent injunction restraining the Appellant/claimant from interfering with the respondent’s right for further development in the remaining extent of the lands.

3. The Trial in the Arbitration has commenced and the Appellant’s/claimant’s witness has also been cross examined by the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal on 07.08.2021 as seen from the Additional Typed set of papers filed by the Appellant before this Court.

4. During Trial, the Appellant has filed the aforementioned IAs under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. According to the Appellant, as seen from the Affidavit filed in support of IA Nos. 2 and 3 of 2019, the need for filing the aforementioned IAs under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, arises for the following reasons

a. the Respondent has given a misleadin