Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 1062

2026 DHC 4192
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
Imran Ahmed Ansari & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
Intex Technologies (India) Ltd & Anr. – Respondents
O.M.P. (COMM) 199 of 2025, I.A. 13085 of 2025 (Stay) & I.A. 13087 of 2025 (Seeking permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates)
Decided On : 08-05-2026
Advocates Appeared :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rohan Jaitley, Mr. Arun Srivastava, Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Mr. Akhil Srivastava and Mr. Prashant Srivastava, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Rudreshwar Singh and Mr. Amit Chadha, Senior Advocates along with Mr. Atit Jain, Mr. Shanky Jain, Mr. Harjas Singh, Ms. Tanishka, Mr. Atin Chadha, Ms. Manisha Chadha and Mr. Ayush Bhagat, Advocates along with Mr. Karmveer.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rohan Jaitley, Arun Srivastava, Yogya Bhatia, Akhil Srivastava, Prashant Srivastava
For the Respondents: Rudreshwar Singh, Amit Chadha, Atit Jain, Shanky Jain, Harjas Singh, Tanishka, Atin Chadha, Manisha Chadha, Ayush Bhagat, Karmveer

The court’s jurisdiction under the arbitration statute is limited and cannot be invoked to sit in appeal or re-evaluate evidence. An arbitrator's decision to award monetary compensation instead of specific performance, being a plausible view based on records, is immune to interference under the governing grounds of challenge.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 10 - Challenge to arbitral award - Specific performance of contract for sale of immovable property - Arbitrator declined specific performance, holding that the breach was adequately compensable in monetary terms - Scope of judicial review under section 34 is limited and does not permit the court to sit as an appellate body or re-appreciate evidence - An award constitutes a plausible view if it considers the materials before the tribunal and provides intelligible reasoning for its conclusions. (Paras 36, 41, 46, 74)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - Courts are prohibited from interfering with an award simply because a different interpretation or conclusion is possible - Interference is permissible only if the award is perverse, irrational, or violates fundamental policy - Reappreciation of evidence or mere erroneous application of law is not a ground for setting aside an award. (Paras 47, 50, 74)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the specific performance of an agreement to sell relating to a plot of land, asserting their continuous readiness and willingness to perform their obligations. The arbitrator denied the relief of specific performance, finding that the breach could be adequately compensated in monetary terms. The arbitrator awarded a refund of the consideration paid, along with interest and incidental costs, rather than forcing the completion of the sale, which the petitioners challenged as a failure to apply the statutory presumption in favor of specific performance.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the arbitral award was based on a comprehensive consideration of the parties' conduct, evidencing an exercise of discretion that was neither perverse nor patently illegal. The arbitrator's reliance on the adequacy of monetary compensation as an alternative to specific performance was grounded in the specific facts and commercial nature of the transaction, which constitutes a legally sustainable view that the court cannot overturn under the threshold set by the governing arbitration legislation.

Issues: The main issues were whether the arbitrator's denial of specific performance in favor of monetary damages, despite the statutory presumption under the applicable specific relief law, was perverse or patently illegal, and whether the court could re-examine the evidence of readiness and willingness to grant a decree for specific performance.

Ratio Decidendi: An arbitral tribunal's decision regarding the adequacy of compensation remains within its discretionary domain, and where the reasoning provided is intelligible and based on the evidence presented, a court exercising jurisdiction under the arbitration statute cannot substitute the tribunal's findings with its own assessment of facts or equitable remedies.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual history regarding the purchase agreement, dispute inception, and arbitration outcome. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. petitioner's arguments regarding incorrect burden of proof and specific performance grant. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. respondent's arguments on limited scope of section 34 and discretionary nature of relief. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. legal principles governing public policy and judicial intervention under the a&c act. (Para 27 , 28 , 29)
5. analysis of arbitral tribunal's reasoning and limits of judicial review under arbitration law. (Para 30 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)
6. holding on the validity of the arbitral award against grounds of perversity and illegality. (Para 50)

JUDGMENT :

HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.

1. The present Petition being has been instituted under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [A&C Act] read with Section 10 of Commercial Courts Act, 2015, challenging and seeking, inter alia, setting aside of the Arbitral Award dated 27.01.2025, [Arbitral Award], passed by the Ld. Sole Arbitrator.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. Disputes between the parties arise out of an Agreement to Sell dated 28.09.2016, executed in respect of Industrial Plot bearing No. D-205, Sector-63, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh admeasuring 4000 sq. metres.

3. As per the Petitioners, the Agreement to Sell recorded a sale consideration of Rs. 8 crores and various payments were made by the Petitioners towards the transaction. Subsequently, the Agreement was sought to be substituted in favour of Petitioner No. 1 and Transfer Memorandum proceedings were initiated before the NOIDA Authority.

4. Disputes thereafter arose between the parties regarding alleged encumbrances over the subject property, payment of the balance sale consideration, readiness and willingness of the parties and execution of transfer documents. The Respondents thereafter issued a Termination Notice dated 12.09.2017, [Termination Notice] purporting to terminate the Agreement to Sell.

5. Pursuant to proceedings before the Noida Authority, an order dated 15.10.2019 came to be passed directing Respondent No.1 to furnish relevant documents and directing Petitioner No.1 to make payment of the balance consideration amount simultaneously.

6. The Petitioners claim that they remained ready and willing to perform their obligations, whereas the Respondents dispute the same.

7. In view of the disputes between the parties, arbitration was invoked and this Court vide Order dated 03.03.2022 appointed the learned Sole Arbitrator.

8. Before the learned Arbitral Tribunal, the Petitioners sought, inter alia, specific performance of the Agreement to Sell, whereas the Respondents contested the claims and also preferred counterclaims.

9. Vide the Impugned Arbitral Award, the learned Arbitral Tribunal declined the relief of specific performance and instead awarded a refund of Rs. 3.50 crores along with interest in favour of the Petitioners. In the same line, certain counterclaims, namely, counterclaims 2 and 3, of the Respondents were also allowed.

10. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Arbitral Tribunal insofar as denial of specific performance and allowance of counterclaims 2 and 3 are concerned, the Petitioners have filed the present Petition seeking setting aside of the Impugned Arbitral Award on grounds including patent illegality, perversity and non-consideration of evidence.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES:

11. Mr. Rohan Jaitley, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, contends that the Impugned Award is patently illegal and contrary to the settled principles governing the grant of specific performance in contracts relating to immovable property.

12. He submits that the learned Arbitral Tribunal has erroneously refused the relief of specific performance solely on the premise that the non-performance of the Agreement c

Click Here to Read the rest of this document