Judicial intervention in arbitration cases is limited; courts should uphold arbitral awards unless they conflict with public policy or basic notions of justice.

JUDGMENT :

Subhash Upadhyay, J.

1. The present appeal from order under Section 37 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act (hereinafter referred to as “Arbitration Act”) has been preferred by the appellants against the order dated 12.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Commercial Court, Dehradun in Arbitration Case No.25 of 2024 whereby the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act filed by the appellants was dismissed and the award passed by the sole arbitrator in claim petition filed by the respondents was affirmed.

2. The respondents claimed specific performance of an Agreement to Sale dated 05.01.2026 along with compensation /damages to the tune of Rs.3,00,00,000 for the purported willful breach of the contractual obligations by the appellants, or alternatively, the refund of the principal sum of Rs.1,10,00,000 purportedly paid by the respondents to the appellants under the term of the Agreement along with interest.

3. The agreement to sale dated 05.01.2016 was executed between the respondents and the appellants in reference to the plots of land being Khasra Nos. 52, 57 and 2045 in Khewat No.65, admeasuring 9.65 bigas out of 13.36 acres, on which a two-storey building was built, situated at Village Kyarkulil, Bhatta, Pargana –Kendriyandun, Tehsil and District Dehradun.

4. The appellants expressed their desire to sell the property to the respondents for a total sale consideration of Rs.1,50,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Fifty Lakh). As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the respondents paid a sum of Rs.1 Crore vide account payee cheque on 05.01.2016 which was duly enchased and the remaining amount of Rs.50 lakh was to be paid at the time of execution of the sale deed on 31.03.2016.

5. The appellants, however, informed the respondents that there is a ban imposed on the execution of the sale deed in the Village Kyarkulil, Bhatta, Pargana – Kendriyandun, Tehsil and District Dehradun on the suit property by the District Magistrate, Dehradun as such a request was made for extension of time which was extended till 31.08.2016. The appellants, however, further demanded an amount of Rs.10 lakhs and the respondents paid an amount of Rs.9,90,000/- after deducting TDS vide cheque dated 27.04.2016 which was also encashed by the appellants.

6. As the appellants did not execute the sale deed, as such, a legal notice dated 20.08.2018 was sent by respondents calling upon the appellants to either refund the amount of Rs.1 Crore along with 12% interest or to obtain the requisite permission for the execution of the sale deed. In absence of any response from the appellants to the said legal notice the respondents invoked arbitration clause whereby a retired Judge of the High Court could be appointed as an Arbitrator.

7. The said letter for appointment of an arbitrator was also not responded by the appellants and the respondents filed an Arbitration Application No.70/2018 under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration Act before the High Court of Uttarakhand for appointment of an Arbitrator.

8. In the interregnum, the respondents filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act before the Civil Judge/ Senior Division, Dehradun wherein vide order dated 24.07.2019, the learned Judge directed the appellants to maintain status quo with respect to the suit property.

9. Vide order dated 09.09.2022 passed in Arbitration Application No.70 of 2018, the High Court of Uttarakhand appointed Shri Justice V.K. Bist, (Retired High Court Chief Justice) as sole arbitrator.

10. T