ORDER :

Leave Granted.

1. The present Appeal has been filed to challenge an award passed in an ICC arbitration with its seat in New Delhi.

The Appellant has challenged the judgment dated 08.05.2017 passed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("Act"), whereby a division bench of the Delhi High Court rejected the Appeal.

2. The factual background in which the present Appeal has been filed is as follows : -

2.1. The Appellant-Promoters entered into a Shareholders Agreement ("SHA") and a Share Subscription and Purchase Agreement ("SSPA") with Respondents No.1 and 2 both dated 21.03.2008 to acquire 50% shareholding in Respondent No. 3 for the development of a Special Economic Zone for Information Technology and Information Technology Enabled Services. The project was to be developed on a plot of land admeasuring approx. 45,202 sq. mts. in NOIDA ("Project Land") which was allotted to one M/s Sarv Mangal Real Tech Pvt. Ltd. ("M/s Sarv Mangal"). The Project Land was sub-leased by M/s Sarv Mangal to Respondent No. 3.

2.2. The SHA and SSPA were terminated. The parties entered into a Restated Shareholders Agreement ("RSHA") and a Restated Share Subscription and Purchase Agreement ("RSSPA") both dated 02.07.2009. As per Clause 3.3 and 3.4 of the RSSPA, Respondents No. 1 and 2 were required to contribute Rs.45 crore to purchase and subscribe the shares in Respondent No.3, which was brought in by 17.12.2009.

2.3. The Appellants terminated both the agreements on 17.12.2009. The Respondents No. 1 and 2 invoked arbitration, and submitted the Request for Arbitration to the ICC Court under the RSHA and RSSPA.

2.4. The Tribunal vide its award (2:1) dated 20.01.2015 allowed the claim of Respondents No. 1 and 2, and awarded the following : -

(a) payment of Rs. 45,00,27,747/- together with Simple Interest @ 18% p.a. from 31.10.2011 to the date of the award;

(b) payment of Simple Interest @ 15% p.a. on all sums awarded to the claimants in the award, till the date of payment;

(c) the Appellants were not entitled to repayment of lease rental paid to NOIDA from Respondents No. 1 and 2, and the Respondent-Claimants were under no obligation to share future lease rental;

(d) the Appellant-Promoters were directed to pay costs of the arbitration comprising of:

i. fees and expenses of the arbitral tribunal and the ICC administrative expenses fixed by the ICC Court for the total amount of USD 900,000;

ii. Rs.2,39,08,082/- towards the legal fees of the Respondent-Claimants;

iii. costs of the hearing venue in the amount of Rs.6,57,635/-;

iv. a sum of Rs.1,274,931/- in respect of other costs and expenses of the Respondent - Claimants.

2.5. The Appellants filed objections under S. 34 of the 1996 Act before the Delhi High Court. The learned Single Judge vide Order dated 09.02.2017 rejected the challenge on merits, and held that it was an undisputed fact that Respondents No. 1 and 2 had brought in a sum of Rs. 45,00,27,747/- for the project. The Appellants had terminated the RSHA and RSPA soon after the funds were brought in by Respondents No. 1 and 2. The Court found the findings of the arbitral tribunal to be consistent with the terms of the agreement.

2.6. Aggrieved, the Appellants preferred an Appeal under S. 37 of the Act before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 08.05.2017 rejected the Appeal as being devoid of any merit.

3. The Appellants have challenged the Order passed under S. 37 of the 1996 Act by way of the present Special Leave Petition.

3.1. This Court vide interim Order dated 15.09.2017 directed the Appellants to deposit an amount of Rs. 20,00,00,000/- (rupees twenty crore) in the Registry of this Court, which was directed to be invested in a short-term fixed deposit account with a nationalised bank. The Appellants were injuncted from alienating the Project Land, so that in the