JUDGMENT

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. Through the present Appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 37 [hereinafter referred to as "A&C Act"], the Appellant assails the correctness of the Judgment dated 23.12.2025 [hereinafter referred to as the "Impugned Judgment"] passed by the learned District Judge in a petition instituted under Section 34 [hereinafter referred to as the "Section 34 Petition"] of the A&C Act, Section 34. By way of the Impugned Judgment, the learned District Judge has declined interference with the Arbitral Award dated 03.06.2025 [hereinafter referred to as the "Award"] and has upheld the same.

2. The challenge laid by the Appellant in the Section 34 Petition was directed against the findings returned by the learned Sole Arbitrator [hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal"] in respect of its claims arising out of a Collaboration Agreement executed between the parties. The Appellant contended that the Award suffered from patent illegality, inasmuch as material evidence had been ignored, findings had been returned in the absence of proof, and reliance had been placed upon documents which were neither duly proved nor admissible in evidence. The learned District Judge, however, found no ground to interfere and dismissed the Section 34 Petition.

3. Since the present Appeal arises under Section 37 against an order refusing to set aside the Award, the scope of interference is necessarily circumscribed. The question that arises for consideration is whether the learned District Judge committed any error warranting appellate interference while declining to set aside the Award.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. Before examining the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be appropriate to briefly notice the factual background giving rise to the present Appeal.

5. The Appellant is engaged in the business of construction, whereas Respondent No.1 is the owner of property bearing No.1302/13, Khasra No.93, Govindpuri, Kalkaji, New Delhi, admeasuring 185 sq. yds [hereinafter referred to as "subject property"]. Respondent No.2 is the son of Respondent No.1. The disputes between the parties arise out of a Collaboration Agreement dated 25.05.2013 [hereinafter referred to as "Collaboration Agreement"] executed between the Appellant and the Respondent No.1 in respect of the subject property.

6. In terms of the Collaboration Agreement, the Appellant was entrusted with the obligation of undertaking construction from the first floor up to the terrace, comprising multiple residential units, while the ground floor remained with the Respondent No.1. As per the Collaboration Agreement, upon completion of construction, six flats would be allocated to the Appellant.

7. During the continuance of the said arrangement, Respondent No.1 executed a registered Gift Deed transferring an undivided 50% share in the property in favour of Respondent No.2. It is the case of the Appellant that the said transfer, coupled with the subsequent conduct of Respondent No.2, impeded the progress of construction.

The Respondents, however, dispute the said allegation.

8. According to the Appellant, as urged in the Section 34 Petition, substantial investments were made towards construction, and the work stood completed up to the agreed stage by the year 2016. It is alleged that notwithstanding such completion, the Respondents failed to convey title and possession of the six flats agreed to be allotted to the Appellant and, instead, dealt with certain portions of the property in favour of third parties.

9. The Respondents, on the other hand, contend that the Appellant was in breach of the Collaboration Agreement, having undertaken unauthorized construction, which led to the property being sealed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "MCD"], besides initiation of criminal proceedings. It is further their case that the Appellant repeatedly sought extensions, failed to adhere to the contractual stipulations, an