The court held that unilateral enforcement of an arbitral award violated legal norms, reinforcing the principle that parties must adhere to statutory requirements before enforcing an award.

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J.

CM-180-FCARB-2024

Prayer in the instant application preferred under Section 151 CPC is for placing on record Annexures A-13 to A-16 as also to exempt filing certified/true types copies thereof.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Annexures A-13 to A-16 are taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place on the case file.

FAO-CARB-51-2024 (O&M)

1. The appellant (M/s DLF Home Developers Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as the appellant/developer/counter claimant) assails the order dated 09.09.2024 vide which the Exclusive Commercial Court, Gurugram dismissed the petition filed by it under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the 1996 Act’).

2. In nutshell, a collaboration agreement dated 26.11.2007 (Annexure P-2) (as annexed with the petition preferred under Section 9 of the 1996 Act which is on record as Annexure A-1) was executed between the appellant/developer/counter claimant and respondents No.2 to 8 (M/s Acme Build Well Pvt. Ltd. and six other companies) through respondents No.9 to 13 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘land owners’) and respondent No.1 (M/s Orris Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘original developer’). The respondents shall be collectively referred to as the respondents/claimants.

3. The land owners owned 40.084 acres of land (hereinafter referred to as the ‘disputed land’) situated in the Revenue Estate of Village Hayatpur, Tehsil and District Gurugram. They had entered into agreements with the original developer to carry out development works of the said land. Subsequently, the collaboration agreement in question was executed between the land owners, the original developer and the appellant/developer/counter claimant for construction of commercial projects. Certain disputes arose between the parties as a result of which arbitration was invoked by the respondents/claimants. Certain claims were raised by the respondents/claimants and a counter claim was set up by the appellant/developer/counter claimant. Award dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure P- 4) was passed. After the passing of the award, an application for correction (Annexure P-6) was moved on 30.07.2024 by the appellant/developer/counter claimant. During the pendency of the said application, a petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act (Annexure A-1) was preferred by the appellant/developer/counter claimant. The final award was passed on 30.08.2024 and the petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act was dismissed by way of the impugned order dated 09.09.2024, leading to the filing of the instant appeal.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

4. After disputes having arisen between the parties and the matter having been referred for arbitration in terms of Clause 17 of the Collaboration Agreement which dealt with arbitration, award dated 15.07.2024 was passed by the Sole Arbitrator Mr. Justice Deepak Verma, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India. The respondents/claimants were held entitled to be handed over the unencumbered and vacant possession of the disputed land by the appellant/developer/counter claimant. They were further held entitled to release of the original title documents of the disputed land which were in joint custody of the appellant/developer/counter claimant and respondents/claimants in a locker with Corporation Bank, Sikanderpur Branch, DLF City, Phase-I, Gurugram. Further, the appellant/developer/counter claimant was directed to do all acts and take all steps necessary in order to release and hand over the unencumbered title deeds of the disputed land. It was further ordered that in the event of such steps not being taken, the respondents/claimants would be entitled to approach the bank concerned directly for release and handover of the original title documents and for sole and exclusive custody thereof. The remaining claims No. d, e, f and g were rejected.

5. Counter claims No. I, II and III were rejected and it w