O R D E R

The respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal has challenged the Award that has been passed against them by the Sole Arbitrator vide Award dated 30.09.2018 in the dispute between them and the respondent herein.

2. The facts which have led to the filing of the Claim Petition before the Arbitral Tribunal are herein below narrated in brief:

The respondent who is the owner of the property measuring an extent of 72 cents in Old Survey No.259/1A1 part presently New Survey No 259/1A1B of Poonamallee, Thiruvallur District had entered into an agreement with the petitioner for permitting the development of the entire extent of property. The parties originally entered into a joint Development agreement on 06.10.2010 and thereafter followed it with a supplementary agreement on 10.06.2011. Under the terms of the JDA, the petitioner had undertaken to complete the construction within a period of 24 months from the date of receipt of the sanctioned plan and the work permission for the construction of the proposed building and time limit was also fixed for obtaining the sanctioned plan as 12 months from the date of the receipt of the patta after sub- division. It was made clear that in the event of delay in obtaining the sanction not attributable to any acts of omission or commission on the part of the Developer, the time for such sanction would be mutually extended by both parties.

3. While executing the Joint Development Agreement (JDA), the petitioner herein had paid a sum of Rs.1,40,00,000/- to the respondent company and further sum of Rs.6,20,000/- at the time of entering into the supplementary agreement, totalling a sum of Rs.1,46,20,000/-. The respondent on receiving the said sum, had handedover the possession of the property to the petitioner herein. The understanding between the parties was that the sharing between the parties would be 63 per cent :37 percent, viz. the petitioner would be taking 63 per cent and the respondent 37 per cent. The respondent's share was the commercial portion of the building which was to come up in the front side of the property and the petitioner was to take 63 per cent of the residential building which was to be put up on the rear side.

4. Originally the power of attorney was executed by the respondent in favour of one J.Ruben George which was subsequently revoked on 10.06.2011 and fresh power of attorney was executed appointing the petitioner as the power agent of the respondent on

13.06.2011.

5. The terms of the JDA stipulated that the petitioner had to obtain the sanction/permission and approval and the respondent was to make available the Sub-division Patta which was required for obtaining the permits and approvals from the competent authorities.

6. The petitioner had submitted a plan for getting necessary approval from the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority hereinafter referred to as CMDA. Thereafter it appears that the parties had decided to incorporate certain changes with reference to commercial Block and the same was incorporated vide letter dated

28.01.2013 of the respondent.

7. The respondent would contend that the petitioner had failed to obtain the CMDA approval within the stipulated time of two years after they had submitted the plan. The petitioner came up with a statement that the OSR charges of Rs.6,00,000/- had to be paid by the claimant. The respondent made enquiry with the petitioner as to why such a huge amount had to be paid and it was only then the petitioner had stated that they had not provided OSR space in the plan that they had submitted before the CMDA.

8. The respondent had sought the cooperation of the petitioner to make certain changes so as to deal with the OSR charges. The said communications were not responded to by the petitioner herein and there was no cooperation from their end in trying to work out the solution.

9. In view of the delay being caused by the petitioner herein, the respondent had addressed a letter on 15.05.2014 stating in case they did not adhere t