$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 16.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 01.04.2026 + O.M.P. 110/2009 SUJIT KUMAR JAISWAL .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Hemlata Rawat, Advocate.

versus THE MANAGING DIRECTOR DALMIA RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Subhranshu Padhi, Mr.

Aman Varma, Ms. Riya Wasade, Ms. Minal Mishra and Ms. Vandana Bedi, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, 1Act, seeking to set aside the Arbitral Award dated 11.08.2008, 2Impugned Award delivered by the learned sole Arbitrator in arbitral proceedings titled “Shri Sujit Kumar Jaiswal vs. M/s Dalmia Resorts International Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.”. By the Impugned Award, the learned Arbitrator dismissed the claims of the Petitioner with costs in favor of the Respondent.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. The Petitioner herein is Sujit Kumar Jaiswal, proprietor of Alark Orient Tibet Teppich Exports, having its place of business in the District of Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.

3. The Respondent herein, i.e., Dalmia Resorts International Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director, is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office in New Delhi.

4. The Petitioner‟s case is that, pursuant to negotiations held with Mr. Anuroadh Srivastava, who was serving as the Area Sales Representative for the Kanpur region of the Respondent, the Petitioner entered into an Agreement dated 31.07.1996, 3Agreement with the Respondent. Under the terms of the said Agreement, the Respondent undertook to extend to the Petitioner a facility involving self-renting and the allotment of vacation ownership units in resorts operated by the Respondent, including, inter alia, Dalmia Resorts at Mussoorie and Goa, along with other locations across India. In consideration of the same, the Petitioner agreed to make payment of specified amounts, upon which the Petitioner was to receive assured rental returns from the allotted units, to be disbursed by the Respondent through cheques or bank drafts.

5. As per the Petitioner, the said Agreement further contemplated a buy-back facility, whereby the Respondent undertook the repurchase of the premises allotted as vacation ownership after a period of two years at a discount of 10 percent of the prevailing market rates, if certain stipulated conditions were not fulfilled by the Respondent.

6. It is also the case of the Petitioner that the Agreement envisaged an additional incentive, namely, that upon booking 52 weeks of ownership, the Petitioner would be entitled to a bonus period of seven weeks, over and above the ownership rights contemplated under the Agreement.

7. Pursuant to the aforesaid Agreement, the Petitioner is stated to have issued seven cheques in favour of the Respondent, aggregating to a total sum of Rs. 24,77,000/-. It is further the case of the Petitioner that, in accordance with the terms and understanding governing the transaction, the said cheques were to be subsequently substituted with bank drafts.

8. According to the Petitioner, despite having made the aforesaid payments, no benefits of vacation ownership were ever extended to him in terms of the Agreement. However, three of the cheques issued by the Petitioner, each amounting to Rs. 3,56,550/-, were encashed by the Respondent.

9. Consequently, the Petitioner, aggrieved by the aforestated conduct, breach of the Agreement and unresponsiveness of the official(s) of the Respondent for allotment of vacation ownership units, visited the General Manager (Finance) of the Respondent, wherein the Petitioner was told that the Area Sales Representative had no powers to enter into any Agreement as entered into by the Petitioner.

10. By this stage, as the Petitioner contends, he had already paid a total sum of Rs. 17,63,900/- to the Respondent company. In view of the above deve