$~24 & 44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 24th April, 2018 + O.M.P. (COMM) 456/2017 SUNIL KUKREJA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.Anil Kher, Sr. Adv. with Mr.D.R.

Bhatia, Mr.Kunal Kher and Ms.Subiya Akbar Warsi, Advs.

versus NORTH WEST SALES AND MARKETING LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Ramesh Singh, Ms.Manisha Handa and Mr.Chirayu Jain, Advs.

44 + O.M.P. (COMM) 56/2018 NORTH WEST SALES & MARKETING LTD.THROUGH IT'S AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SH. BABRU BAHAN SAMAL ..... Petitioner Through Mr.Ramesh Singh, Ms.Manisha Handa and Mr.Chirayu Jain, Advs.

versus SUNIL KUKREJA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Anil Kher, Sr. Adv. with Mr.D.R.

Bhatia, Mr.Kunal Kher and Ms.Subiya Akbar Warsi, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)

1. These petitions have been filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the Arbitral Award dated 22.08.2017 passed by the Sole Arbitrator. Sunil Kukreja shall be referred to as the petitioner and North West Sales and Marketing Ltd. shall be referred to as the respondent in the order.

2. The disputes between the parties arose in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 12.11.2009. Under the said MOU, the petitioner (Sunil Kukreja) agreed to purchase a space with super area of approximately 10,000 square feet and covered area of 5,000 square feet on the 5th floor of the building being constructed by the respondent (North West Sales And Marketing Ltd.) at plot bearing No.40, Community Centre, Block-A, Paschim Puri, Delhi-110063. The MOU records that the sale consideration for the said allotment is Rs.5 crores. The MOU further records that the respondent has received the entire sum of Rs.5 crores from the petitioner as total sale consideration.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that as the respondent failed to construct the building and especially the 5th floor of the same, the respondent agreed to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs.5.10 crores as refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner along with token interest thereon. The petitioner claims that this amount was paid by way of two cheques; one for an amount of Rs.3 crores dated 22.08.2011 and the other for an amount of Rs.2.10 crores dated 28.09.2011. The petitioner claims that receipt of this amount was issued in the form of a letter dated 29.07.2011 which expressly recorded that in case the cheques are not honoured upon presentation, the terms of the MOU would be revived.

4. The petitioner further relied upon a letter dated 21.09.2011 issued by the Director of the respondent company requesting the petitioner to present the cheques on 22.10.2011 as the company was not able to pay the above amount due to some reason. The letter further records that in case the said cheques are not cleared upon presentation, the respondent will be bound to allot the space allotted to the petitioner in terms of the MOU.

5. The petitioner further claims that as the cheques were returned dishonoured upon presentation, the MOU stood revived and the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of the space in terms of the MOU. It is the case of the petitioner that as the respondent was delaying the construction of the building, the respondent agreed to pay interest for such delay and accordingly paid a sum of Rs.3.25 crores to the petitioner by way of the following cheques: -

“a) Rs.75,00,000/- was paid on 07.05.2013;

b) Rs.1,00,00,000/- was paid on 30.05.20 13; and c) Rs.l,50,00,000/- was paid on 25.06.2013.”

6. The petitioner claiming that the respondent had failed to discharge its liability to pay interest as also to allot the space in terms of the MOU, issued a legal notice dated 12.02.2015 to the respondent seeking appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal. As the respondent failed to respond to this notice, a Sole Arbitrator was appointed by this Court vide its Order dated 05.08.2015 passed in Arbitration Petition 174/2015.

7. The arbitration proceedings have resulted in the Impugned Award dated