Mere allegations of fraud do not oust the jurisdiction of the arbitrator. Serious allegations of fraud, making a virtual case of criminal offense and complex issues requiring adjudication on appreciation of evidence, are necessary to avoid the forum of arbitration.

ORDER :

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1. The petitioner/plaintiffs are assailing the correctness of the judgment passed by learned Additional District Judge, Gurugram dated 12.07.2019 reversing the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurugram, resulting in relegating the parties to get their dispute adjudicated from the Arbitral Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). It is very important to note that proceedings between the parties are already pending before the Tribunal.

The learned Additional District Judge has allowed an application filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended by Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The facts as noticed by the learned Additional District Judge, correctness whereof is not disputed by learned counsel for the parties are extracted as under:-

"The facts in brief leading to the filing of this case as made out from the records are that the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 have invested in Real Estate Development Projects in India. The defendant No. 1 is a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 and engaged in Real Estate Development Business, whereas, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are its sister concerns. The defendant No. 1 obtained an in-principal approval dated 7.4.2006 from Ministry of Commerce and Industry for setting up a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) for ITs Sectors at Fazilpur and Behrampur Villages in Gurugram in terms of The Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 and The Haryana Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 and for that purpose the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and their associate companies acquired the land measuring 150 acre approximately in and around Villages Fazilpur and Behrampur, Tehsil and District Gurugram. The defendant No. 1 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter to be referred as MoU) dated 5.4.2006 followed by another MoU dated 18.4.2006 with Solitaire Buildmart Private Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as SBPL) to develop the said SEZ and proposed to enter into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) for development, construction, sale and management of the said proposed SEZ in the State of Haryana through the defendant No. 2. By virtue of the above said MoUs, SBPL had agreed to deposit a sum of not less than 57.75 crore as commitment deposit with the defendant No. 1 till 31.12.2016 to be applied for SEZ Project and in lieu of the above said commitment amount, the SBPL was entitled to 22% of the fully paid equity share capital of the defendant No. 1. The affirmative rights were also given to the SBPL by the defendant No. 1 by virtue of clause No. 4.9 of the MoU and it was further agreed that none of the parties shall directly or indirectly encumber the project land (measuring 150 acre approx.) or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever, without the prior written approval of other party. At the time of the execution of the said MoUs, it was disclosed by the Vipul Group that out of total 150 acre of project land, approximately 50 acre land was acquired by way of sale deeds already executed and registered in favour of Vipul and/or its associates, whereas, the remaining approximately 100 acre of land was acquired by way of agreements to sell executed in their favour. Vide subsequent Assignment Agreements dated 19.5.2016 and 21.8.2016, SBPL assigned its right to invest in the SEZ project to the plaintiffs and a Joint Development Agreement dated 29.8.2006 (hereinafter to be referred as JDA dated 29.8.06) was executed by the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 acting upon the assignment in their favour by SBPL. The said JDA dated 29.8.2006 was also accepted by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and they also signed the same. The details of the project land under JDA dated 29.8.2006 were mentioned in Schedule-1 attached therewith. As per the JDA, the plaintiffs were also given a representation on the Board of the defendant No. 2 and its representative was appointed as a Director in the defendant