Award Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act If View Taken By Arbitrator Is A Plausible View: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Sachin Datta has held that conduct of the parties has to be seen before granting equitable relief for specific performance of the contract. If the conduct of the parties does not demonstrate that the party claiming relief is ready and willing to perform his part of the contract then the relief under the Specific Relief Act cannot be granted. The court in this case refused to set aside the award under section 34 of the Arbitration Act on the ground that the Arbitrator had taken a plausible view based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Brief Facts The present petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the A&C Act') assails an arbitral award dated 12.04.2022, whereby the arbitral tribunal has refused to grant specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 30.12.2009 (hereafter the agreement) and directed the respondent to make a payment of Rs. 10,37,63,684/- to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of the award while rejecting all other claims and counterclaims raised by the parties. The respondent became the owner of property pursuant to a sale deed dated 29.11.2006. Subsequently, the respondent entered into an agreement to sell dated 30.12.2009 (hereinafter “the agreement”) in respect of the concerned property with the petitioner. This agreement lies at the centre of the controversy in the present case. While the respondent admittedly received the sale consideration of Rs. 5 crores, as specified under the agreement, it failed to comply with the obligation under the agreement to either repay an amount of Rs. 5,52,50,000/- in lieu of the sale consideration within 72 days of signing the agreement or execute a sale deed within 75 days of signing the agreement. Subsequently, the petitioner initiated arbitration to resolve the dispute/s. The arbitral award dated 12.04.2022 (hereinafter “the impugned award”) rejects the claim of the petitioner for specific performance and instead directs the respondent to refund the sale consideration to the petitioner along with interest. Hence, the present petition. Contentions The petitioner submitted that it was emphasised before the learned Arbitrator that once 100% payment has been made, there is no discretion available to the learned Arbitrator as far as the grant of specific performance is concerned, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Leeladhar (Dead) Through Legal Representatives v. Vijay Kumar (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and Others, (2020). That the passage of time does not afford an adequate justification to deny specific relief in a situation where 100% payment has already been made by the vendor, as held by the Supreme Court in Ferrodous Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. v. P. Gopirathnam (Dead) and Others, 2020. That Clause 2 and Clause 11 provided that the option to the vendor to refund the amount was available only for a period of 72 days from the date of signing of the Agreement and after that, the vendor did not have this option of seeking to resist specific performance of the Agreement and refunding the sale consideration amount. Per contra, the respondents submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal rightly exercised its discretion in not granting specific performance. That the attendant circumstances surrounding the Agreement to Sell coupled with the fact that the persons who have allegedly paid 100% consideration chose to sit silent for inordinately long period of time, gives an insight as to the real nature of the transaction. Court's Analysis The court, at the outset, discussed the nature of relief under the Specific Relief Act and observed that While the remedy of specific performance is available under the Specific Relief Act, 1963, it is a settled position in law that granting such a relief of specific performance lies entirely in the discretion of the Court. Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (prior to the 2018 amendment) stipulates that the court is not bound to grant the relief of specific performance merely because it is lawful to do so but in terms of discretion guided by soundness, reasonability and judicial principles. The court further observed that Specific relief is a discretionary remedy. Since the agreement to sell is dated 30.12.2009, the subsequent amendment to the specific relief act, whereby Section 10 of the amended Act makes it mandatory to grant specific relief, would not be applicable in the present case since the same only has prospective application.The Supreme Court in Katta Sujatha Reddy and Another v. Siddamsetty Infra Projects Private Limited and Others (2023) has affirmed this position. The court further referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Kumar v. Anand Kumar and Others 2024 wherein it was held that where the suit for specific performance was instituted at the fag end of the period of limitation, the...

Award Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act If View Taken By Arbitrator Is A Plausible View: Delhi High Court

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mohd Malik Chauhan

Award Cannot Be Set Aside U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act If View Taken By Arbitrator Is A Plausible View: Delhi High Court

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Mohd Malik Chauhan

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers