FAO(OS) (COMM) 8/2019

Page 1 of 22

$~10

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

FAO(OS) (COMM) 8/2019, CM APPL. 28557/2019, CM APPL.

6877/2020, CM APPL. 7219-20/2020, CM APPL. 29298/2021 & CM

APPL. 32194/2022

TEJPAL SINGH

..... Appellant

Through:

Mr. M. Tarique Siddiqui, Mr Bhagat

Singh, Mr. Manish Gusain, Mr. Md.

Noumaan and Ms. Jyotsna Bhardwaj,

Advs.

Versus

SURINDER KUMAR DEWAN

..... Respondent

Through:

Mr. Anil K. Kher. Sr. Advocate with Mr.

Kunal Kher, Adv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS MAHAJAN

JUDGMENT

VIKAS MAHAJAN, J.

1.

This appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,

1996 ( in short ‘the Act’) is directed against the impugned judgment and order

dated 09.08.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in OMP (COMM.)

178/2018, whereby the learned single judge has partially modified the award to

the extent that amount awarded in favor of the respondent under Claim (A) was

set aside and the amount awarded under Claim (B) was restricted to

Rs.35,000/- per month for the period from May 2006 to 11.05.2007 along with

interest as awarded by the learned Arbitrator. The remaining directions in the

Digitally Signed

By:ARUNA KANWAR

Signing Date:17.12.2022

19:09:48

Signature Not Verified

FAO(OS) (COMM) 8/2019

Page 2 of 22

impugned award were upheld.

2.

While entering into the facts and circumstances related to the

controversy involved in the present appeal, it would be profitable to

recapitulate the background and set up in which the dispute arose between the

parties. The respondent (claimant before the learned arbitrator) being the

absolute owner of the property bearing no. A-2/5 admeasuring 450 sq. yards,

situated at Model Town, Delhi, entered into the Collaboration Agreement with

the appellant on 03.05.2005, where under it was agreed that the existing

structure of the aforesaid property would be demolished and a new building

would be raised in conformity with the sanctioned plan and as per the

specification which were mutually discussed, agreed upon and reduced into

writing.

3.

Since one of the argument raised by the appellant before us is that the

two collaboration agreements filed by the respondent-claimant before the

learned arbitrator are forged and fabricated whereas the one filed by the

appellant is genuine, it is apt to deal with this argument at the outset to dispel

the doubt created as regard the authenticity of collaboration agreements. It is

noticed from the record that three different collaboration agreements were filed

and exhibited before the learned arbitrator. Two collaborations agreements i.e.

Ex.CW1/2 and Ex. CW1/C were filed by the respondent-claimant; whereas

Ex. RW6/A was filed by the appellant. The learned arbitrator has recorded

that the appellant had in his cross examination admitted that he had signed

every page of Ex. CW-1/C and further admitted his signatures on the

cuttings/corrections made thereon except the cutting/correction made at point

‘A’. The appellant had also stated that the signatures at point ‘B’ appeared to

Digitally Signed

By:ARUNA KANWAR

Signing Date:17.12.2022

19:09:48

Signature Not Verified

FAO(OS) (COMM) 8/2019

Page 3 of 22

be his but he had not signed the same. Thereafter, the learned arbitrator

compared the admitted signatures of the appellant with those appearing at the

cuttings/corrections and the same were found to tally with one another. The

learned arbitrator has thus, concluded that once the appellant had admitted his

signatures on Ex. CW-1/C, it did not lie in the mouth of the appellant to say

that Ex.CW-1/C as filed by the respondent-claimant was a forged and

fabricated document. The said findings of the learned arbitrator do not call for

any interference as the view taken by the learned arbitrator is a possible view

of the evidence on record. The relevant findings of the learned arbitrator in this