An appellate court exercising jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot substitute its own view or re-appreciate evidence if the arbitral award is based on a plausible interpretation of the contract and facts, as the scope of interference is strictly limited to the grounds enumerated in Section 34.

THIS COMAP UNDER SECTION 13(1A) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 11.03.2025. IN COM.A.P.194/2023 PASSED BY THE LXXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (CCH 88) (COMMERCIAL COURT) BANGALORE, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, BY WHICH THE ARBITRATION AWARD DATED 31.08.2023 PASSED BY THE SOLE ARBITRATOR, IN A.C.NO.196/2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B WAS CONFIRMED.

THIS COMAP HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU ,CHIEF JUSTICE

and

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

C.A.V. JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA)

1. The present commercial appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [A&C Act] is preferred by the appellant [petitioner] impugning the judgment dated 11.03.2025 [impugned order], passed in Com.A.P.No.194/2023 on the file of the LXXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru [Commercial Court]. By the impugned judgment, the Commercial Court dismissed the petition filed by the applicant under Section 34 of the A&C Act, holding that the Arbitral award dated 31.08.2023, passed by the learned sole Arbitrator in A.C.No.196/2019 did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference under Section 34 of the A&C Act, and consequently upheld the award.

2. Brief facts:

a. The appellant, A. R. Abdul Razak, along with P. D. Chandrakanth and Pushparaj Shetty were owners of the lands situated at Hanchya Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk. They entered into a development agreement [Ex.P1] dated 27.10.2010 with Ashritha House Building Co-operative Society Ltd., [Society] [Claimant] for formation of a residential layout and sale of sites to the society members.

b. Under the development agreement, the society undertook to obtain approvals, form the layout and pay consideration for the developed saleable area initially at `495 per square feet, which was subsequently revised to `620 per square feet. A General Power of Attorney [GPA] was also executed in favour of the society for implementation of the project.

c. Pursuant to the development agreement, Mysore Urban Development Authority [MUDA] approved the layout and released sites in three phases, namely 73 sites on 01.09.2012, 23 sites on 28.02.2013 and the remaining 25 sites on 08.11.2017. The society paid substantial consideration amounting to about `13.83 crores to the landowners and their sale deeds in respect of 84 sites were executed in favour of its members. However, when the society called upon the landowners to execute sale deeds in respect of the remaining 37 sites, the appellant objected on the ground that he had been paid lesser consideration than the other landowners, that the society had delayed performance, and that he was entitled to additional consideration and a larger share of the sites.

d. The society invoked arbitration clause contained in the development agreement and initiated A.C.No.196/2019 seeking a direction for execution of remaining sale deeds. By award dated 31.08.2023, the learned sole Arbitrator allowed the claim petition, directed execution of the remaining sale deeds at the agreed rate of `620 per square feet and rejected the appellant's counterclaim.

e. The learned Sole Arbitrator held that the society had substantially performed its obligation under the development agreement dated 27.10.2010 [Ex.P1] and further found that the society had developed the layout, secured release of 121 sites in three phases, and paid substantial consideration amounting to `13.83 crores to the landowners. The learned sole Arbitrat