The court upheld the arbitral award, finding no unreasonable delay or jurisdictional errors, affirming the arbitrator's findings were based on evidence, as claims were not barred by limitation.

ORDER :

P.B.Balaji, J.

The Original Petition has been filed under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short 'Act'), to set aside the award of the learned Sole Arbitrator, a retired Judge of this Court, dated 01.06.2016 and the erratum to the award dated 10.08.2016.

2. I have heard Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanandham, learned counsel for the petitioner in O.P.No.838 of 2016 and the first respondent in Civil Revision Petitions, Mr.Roshan Balasubramanian, learned counsel for the first respondent in O.P.No.838 of 2016 and the petitioner in all the Civil Revision Petitions and Mr.S.Kaushik Ramaswamy, learned counsel for the respondents 3 to 5, who are the legal heirs of the second respondent, who is none else than the brother of the petitioner in O.P.No.838 of 2016.

3. The brief facts, which are necessary to adjudicate the Original Petition under Section 34 of the Act as well as the Civil Revision Petitions, are as follows:

The petitioner is the brother of the second respondent and they along with their mother were co-owners of the land comprised in Survey Nos.59/2A, 59/3A, 59/4 and 81/5A situated at East Coast Road, Muttukadu, lands measuring to an extent of 4.92 Acres.

4. The first respondent evinced interest to develop the said land, belonging to the family of the petitioner and on 27.03.2006, a joint development agreement was entered into between the first respondent, the petitioner, the second respondent and the mother of the petitioner and the second respondent, viz., K.A.Vitoebai. Immediately, upon execution of the joint development agreement, the mother executed a power of attorney in favour of the first respondent on 28.03.2006. On the same day, the petitioner also executed a power of attorney in favour of the first respondent. The second respondent also executed a power of attorney on 26.03.2006 in favour of the first respondent. The said powers of attorney were executed to enable the power agent to manage, develop and administer the property, prepare a lay out, plot out the land, etc., besides also empowering the agent to identify purchasers for purchasing plots in the lay out. The initial agreement arrived at was that the owners would be entitled to 60% and the developer would be entitled to 40%. The parties also agreed as to the actual plots that each of the owners would become entitled to in the lay out. The joint development captured other terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties like construction of 32 Villas and 13 Villas would be constructed for the owners, each villa having a built up area of 3,000 sq.ft and 4800 sq.ft of land and the mother would be entitled to 5 villas and the petitioner and the second respondent would be entitled 4 villas each. The joint venture also contemplated to provide roads, swimming pools, club house, etc, which were to be common facilities for the enjoyment of all the owners in the lay out. The said joint development agreement contained an Arbitration Clause for resolution of any dispute arising between the parties.

5. Thereafter, the parties also entered into a Supplementary Agreement on 17.02.2009, in and by which certain areas regarding interpretation of the respective entitlement of plots/ villas, OSR area and extent of site were trashed out between the parties and the modified terms were incorporated in the said Supplementary Agreement. Under the said Supplementary Agreement, the parties also agreed upon the allotment of respective plots as per the DTCP Approval, having a particular measurement (in square feet), besides also mentioni