O R D E R

Captioned 'Arbitration Original Petition' [hereinafter 'Arb.OP' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] has been presented in this Court on 19.07.2021 under Section 34 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] assailing an 'arbitral award dated 12.03.2021 bearing Reference No.High Court Arbitration file 70/2018/MHCAC/Hct.Ms.'

[hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 2. Mr.Avinash Wadhwani, learned counsel along with Ms.K.Abhirame for sole petitioner and Mr.C.Uma Shankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.D.Dhanasekaran, counsel on record for caveator [to be noted, lone respondent in captioned Arb.OP has lodged a caveat] are before this Court.

3.. Short facts shorn of granular particulars that are not imperative for appreciating this order are that a 'Memorandum of Understanding dated 12.09.2014' [hereinafter 'said MOU' for the sake of brevity and convenience] was entered into between the parties i.e., 'N.Sethumadhavan, petitioner in captioned Arb.OP' [hereinafter 'builder' for the sake of convenience] and 'N.Tamil Selvi, respondent in captioned Arb.OP' [hereinafter 'land owner' for the sake of convenience]; that said MOU was for development of 'land admeasuring 30 cents or thereabouts comprised in Survey No.228/2A Part, New Patta No.2410, New Survey No.228/2A1 (according to New Patta) in Jallidianpettai Village [earlier Tambaram Taluk in Sholinganallur Taluk] situate within Chennai Registration District and Chennai Corporation' [hereinafter 'said land' for the sake of convenience and clarity]; that said land is part of a larger extent of 70 cents of land; that said MOU was for development of said land by putting up apartments [flats therein]; that the flats are to be put up by builder and the developed property is to be shared in a 50% each ratio; that this development/construction had to be completed within a time frame of fifteen months from the date of said MOU or from the date on which land owner hands over possession of said land to builder or from the date on which planning permission is obtained for development; that three different reckoning dates have been mentioned for computing the fifteen months time frame; that this makes the computation of this time frame a conundrum of sorts; that therefore it will suffice to notice that fifteen months time frame has been fixed qua said MOU; that post said MOU, land owner executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of builder and one Mr.S.Kumar; that thereafter an agreement captioned SUPPLEMENTAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT dated 17.04.2017 came to be executed between land owner and 'M/s.SRI RAM PROMOTERS, a Partnership firm' [hereinafter 'builder firm' for the sake of convenience] represented by builder and one Mr.S.Kumar who have been described as partners of builder firm; that this 17.04.2017 agreement shall hereinafter be referred to as 'second agreement'; that the terms of said MOU were altered in and by this second agreement; that the sharing ratio was changed from 50% each to 60% to the builder firm and 40% to the land owner; that no time frame is fixed; that there is specific reference to said MOU in second agreement and there is a covenant to the effect that no other claims subsist between the parties qua said MOU; that there are three reckoning dates for computing the fifteen months time frame qua said MOU and therefore, the computation of fifteen months of time frame is a conundrum of sorts (as already alluded to supra) but it is submitted before this Court without any disputation that fifteen months time frame computed in any one of the three methods had elapsed before the date of the second agreement i.e., before 17.04.2017; that the development was ultimately completed; that the flats were handed over to the land owner though some disputation erupted about the quantum; that disputes erupted as the