FAO(OS)(COMM)107 &108/2018Page 1 of 23

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

FAO(OS) (COMM) 107/2018 & CMs. 20269/2018 & 49639/2019

V4 INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate

with Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi, Mr.

AmitSood and Mr. Dinesh Singh,

Advocates.

versus

JINDAL BIOCHEM PVT LTD

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Sanjiv Anand, Mr. Amit Dubey,

Mr. Vikas Kakkar, Advocates.

+

Through:

Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate

with Mr. S.K. Chaturvedi, Mr.

AmitSood and Mr. Dinesh Singh,

Advocates.

versus

JINDAL BIOCHEM PVT LTD

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Sanjiv Anand, Mr. Amit Dubey,

Mr. Vikas Kakkar, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

FAO(OS) (COMM) 108/2018 & CMs. 20272/2018 & 49347/2019

V4 INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD

..... Appellant

2020:DHC:1866-DB

FAO(OS)(COMM)107 &108/2018Page 2 of 23

J U D G M E N T

1.

By way of thisjudgement, weshall dispose of the above-noted appeals

preferred against the common order dated 19.03.2018, whereby Appellant’s

(VIPL) objection petitionsunder Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996, (hereinafter ‘the Act’)have been rejected, and

common arbitral award dated 20.05.2017 stands confirmed.This impugned

arbitralaward deals with two separate claim petitions preferred by the

Appellant relating to respective Space Buyer Agreements(hereinafter

‘arbitration agreements’)concerning separate portions of same property.

Since the objection petitions have been disposed of vide a common

judgment, wealso consider it convenient to dispose of theappeals vide a

common judgement.

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

2.

The facts of the present case have been elaborately noted by the Sole

Arbitrator in the impugned award and also by the learned Single Judge in the

impugned judgment. Since there is not much dispute about the same, and

furthermore as scope of the surviving controversy encapsulated hereinafter

is narrow, we need not recount the entire facts and rather verbatim note from

the impugned judgment only thosewhich are essential, for the disposal of the

present appeals. The same read as follows:

Brief Facts:

2020:DHC:1866-DB

FAO(OS)(COMM)107 &108/2018Page 3 of 23

second floor of the Property at a consideration of ₹3.15 crores.

2020:DHC:1866-DB

FAO(OS)(COMM)107 &108/2018Page 4 of 23

2020:DHC:1866-DB

FAO(OS)(COMM)107 &108/2018Page 5 of 23

3.

An essential fact, emanating from the record that stands out and is

worthyof mentioning is that prior to the commencement of the arbitration

proceedings, on petitionspreferred by the Respondentunder Section 9 of the

Act, this court vide order dated 16.09.2011directed parties to maintain

status quo in respect of the properties in dispute. The interim stay in favour

of the Respondent was made absolute vide order dated 10.01.2014.

Thereafter,arbitration proceedings commenced between the parties and

culminated in the arbitral award in favour of the Respondent. During this

period, the abovenoted interim order continued to bind the parties. The

Appellant assailed the award under Section 34 of the Act, inter alia, on the

ground that the premise of the award was intrinsically flawed. The learned

arbitratorgranted relief of return of the consideration amount along with

interest on an erroneous premise that Respondent had not claimed specific

performance

of

the

agreements.

The

learned

Single

Judge,

Summary of proceedings:

2020:DHC:1866-DB

FAO(OS)(COMM)107 &108/2018Page 6 of 23

however,dismissed the objection petitionsand upheld the award holding that

there is no infirmity in the same.

4.

In the appeals before us, at the stage of admission, the Appellant

expressed itsinclination to settle the matter and stated that it was ready and

willing to pay Rs.7.40crores [principal amount] along with interest in

instalments, with reasonable reduction in the rate of interest. Taking note o