JUDGMENT

1. The present proceedings are instituted under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘A&C Act’) thereby seeking setting aside of the arbitral award dated 30.08.2024 (hereinafter, ‘impugned award’) delivered by the Arbitral Tribunal comprising of a Sole Arbitrator (hereinafter, ‘AT’).

2. The Petitioner/builder and Respondent/buyer had entered into two Builder Buyer Agreements, both dated 30.12.2008 and pari materia to one another (hereinafter, ‘BBA’), whereby two commercial properties being i) PSQ C-1-F04-009, Unit no. 409, 4^th Floor (commercial section), commercial project “The Palm Square”, Sector 66, Gurugram, Haryana and ii) PSQ C-1-F04-010, Unit No. 410, 4^th Floor (Commercial Section), “The Palm Square”, Sector 66, Gurugram, Haryana (hereinafter, ‘subject premises’) were agreed to be sold to the Respondent by the Petitioner.

3. Briefly stated, as per Clause 16(a)(i) of the BBA, the Builder was supposed to deliver possession of the Units to the Claimant/Respondent within 36 months from the execution of the BBA, i.e., by 31.12.2011. There was an additional grace period of 120 days available to the Builder for delivery of possession, which expired on 30.04.2012. The project is stated to have been issued Occupancy Certificate from the authorities on 22.12.2014, following which, possession of the Units was offered on 26.12.2014 by way of a Letter of Intimation of Possession.

4. As per Clause 18(a) of the BBA, the buyer was entitled to be paid interest on the sums paid by it to the Builder, @ 9% p.a, for the period of delay, in case the Builder failed to deliver possession by the BBA stipulated time. It is the Respondent’s case that 90% of the contract price already stands paid to the Petitioner vide two instalments of INR 1,24,34,721/- and INR 1,32,13,968/- in 2007 and 2009, respectively.

5. It is alleged that, the Builder committed a breach of the BBA by failing to deliver possession in time, on account of which the Respondent terminated the BBA vide notice dated 19.03.2015 and sought refund of the entire sum paid by it, along with interest @ 15% p.a.

6. Thus, a dispute arose between the parties and the Builder invoked arbitration under Clause 35 of the BBA. Late Sh, Rajiv Bansal, Senior Advocate, was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator on 08.04.2015. However, after the invocation of arbitration, the parties explored the possibility of an amicable settlement, pending which, the arbitral proceedings remained in abeyance with no outcome.

7. Subsequently, after a considerable lapse of time, Respondent issued another legal notice dated 17.12.2020, reiterating its demand for refund of sums paid by it along with the interest that it demanded @ 24% p.a. Respondent replied to the demand vide its letter dated 28.12.2020 stating that it was willing to offer possession subject to the Petitioner paying the outstanding dues.

8. Respondent felt dissatisfied, and vide its letter dated 27.03.2021, it issued a notice under Section 21 of the A&C Act invoking arbitration. Unfortunately, thereafter, the Sole Arbitrator previously appointed passed away on 17.05.2021, which led to the Respondent filing a petition under Section 11 A&C Act (ARB.P 589/2021) before this Court. Vide order dated 30.11.2021, a new Arbitrator, Dr. Amit George, was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator, to adjudicate the disputes. The arbitral proceedings proceeded thereon and could not be concluded within the one-year mandatory period. Consequently, vide order dated 25.08.2023, this Court extended the mandate of the AT till 30.08.2024, in a petition filed under Section 29A of the A&C Act.

9. Eventually, the arbitral proceedings came to be terminated with the passing of the final arbitral award dated 30.08.2024.

10. The Respondent/Claimant filed its Statement of Claim (hereinafter, ‘SOC’) before the AT on 10.02.2022, following which, the Petitioner filed its Statement of Defence (hereinafter, ‘SOD’) alongwith its counterclaims on