JUDGMENT

Shail Jain, J.

“The relationship between Courts and Arbitral Tribunals has been said to swing between forced cohabitation and true partnership. The process of arbitration is dependent on the underlying support of the Courts who alone have the power to rescue the system when one party seeks to sabotage it.”

—‘Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese and Minerals (P) Ltd., (2007) 7 SCC 125’

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. Present Appeals have been filed by six Appellants under Section 13 (1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 (herein after referred to as the Act of 1996), inter-alia,, challenging the Final Orders passed by the District Judge (Commercial Court), Central Delhi, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, by which the Petitions filed under Section 9 of the Act of 1996, were dismissed by the concerned Commercial Courts.

3. FAO (COMM) NO. 210/2025, titled “Rahul Bhargava &Anr. vs. Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.”, has been treated as the lead matter in the present bunch of Appeals.

BRIEF FACTS:

4. The brief background of cases leading to these Appeals is as follows-

A. In the year 2015, the Appellants entered into a commercial transaction with the Respondent, Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd., for the purchase of commercial units in a project titled "Neo Square" situated at Sector 109, Dwarka Expressway, Gurugram, Haryana.

B. Pursuant thereto, the Appellants executed a Builder Buyer Agreement ("BBA") and a Memorandum of Understanding ("MoU") with the Respondent in respect of Unit No. 21, Third Floor, admeasuring 250 sq. ft., at the rate of Rs. 4,500/- (Rupees Forty Five Hundred) per sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs.11,66,715/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh Sixty-Six Thousand Seven Hundred Fifteen Only).

C. The entire sale consideration was duly paid by all the Appellants at the time of execution of the said agreements.

D. As per the terms of the MoU, the Respondent assured the Appellants of Assured Monthly Returns amounting to Rs. 22,500/- (Rupees Twenty-Two Thousand Five Hundred Only). The Respondent was contractually bound to disburse the said assured returns, beginning from the date of execution of the MoU and BBA, i.e., 31.01.2015, until the commencement of the first lease in respect of the said unit. The obligation to pay assured returns was unconditional and unequivocal under the MoU.

E. However, beginning from the year 2019, disputes arose between the parties, inter alia, on account of the following acts and omissions on the part of the Respondent –

a. The unilateral cessation of payment of assured monthly returns with effect from July 2019;

b. Issuance of a Final Notice dated 07.06.2021 by the Respondent, raising vague, unexplained dues, coupled with an intimation of cancellation of allotment in the event of non-payment of the very dues.

c. Unjustified delay in construction, and failure to hand over possession of the allotted commercial units within the stipulated time.

F. Aggrieved thereby, all the Appellants approached the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police, which culminated in the registration of a common F.I.R. No. 46/2022 under Sections 406, 420, and 120B of IPC dated March 16, 2022, against the Respondent. In addition, all the Appellants instituted proceedings before the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority (hereinafter, ‘HARERA’), by filing various Complaints, including one titled "Rahul Bhargava and Ragni Bhargava vs. Neo Developers Pvt. Ltd.” dated 24.03.2023. Other Appellants also filed similar proceedings in their respective matters.

G. The Complaints of the Appellants in FAO (COMM.) 210/2025, FAO (COMM.) 211/2025, FAO (COMM.) 238/2025, FAO (COMM.) 239/2025, and in FAO (COMM.) 204/2025, FAO (COMM.) 237/2025 were adjudicated by HARERA vide Orders dated 14.08.2024 and 14.05.2025, respectively.

● Vide Order dated 14.08.2024, HARERA was pleased to grant reliefs in favour of the Appellants, mainly in Petitions filed by Appellants