MEERA GOYAL Vs. PRITI SARAF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This decsion disposes of two petitions filed by Ms. Meera Goel who is the respondent in the arbitration proceedings bearing case No.REF:DAC/1405/11-16. The first petition, preferred under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ('the Act') seeks inter-alia setting aside of the order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the learned Arbitrator, which is sought to be termed as an 'interim Award' by the petitioner; rejection of the respondent's claims as also expunction of a portion of the deposition given by the claimant's witnesses and the documents tendered in evidence by the respondent. The second petition, preferred under Sections 14 and 15 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeks termination of the mandate of the present sole Arbitrator and for appointment of a substitute Arbitrator.

(2.) Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, it would be appropriate to notice the brief factual matrix of the matter at the outset. The Petitioner who is the owner of property bearing No.37, Friends Colony, East, New Delhi entered into an agreement to sell with the respondent on 24.12.2011 for sale of a portion thereof, admeasuring 1205.43 sq. yards for a total sale consideration of Rs.63,28,50,750/-. The respondent paid a sum of Rs.12.50 crore to the petitioner by way of earnest money, and thereafter paid her a further sum of Rs.5.40 cr. in the year 2012. On 13.01.2013 the petitioner, alleging that the respondent had failed to pay the balance sale consideration within the time prescribed, terminated the agreement dated 24.12.2011. Subsequently, the parties began communicating to explore the possibility of a settlement, but to no avail. As a result, the respondent preferred petitions before this Court under Sections 9 and 11 of the Act alleging that the petitioner had breached the agreement to sell and, therefore, the earnest money was liable to be refunded to her along with damages. The respondent also prayed for the appointment of an Arbitrator on the ground that notwithstanding its legal notice to the petitioner dated 28.01.2016 invoking arbitration and seeking nomination of an arbitrator, the petitioner had failed to respond thereto.

(3.) On 04.11.2016 this Court, despite the petitioner's denial of being in breach of the agreement or having received the respondent's legal notice, noticed the fact that the existence of the arbitration clause itself was not disputed by the petitioner and appointed Justice Mukul Mudgal (Retd.) as the sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between the parties. While doing so, this Court had specifically observed that the issues viz. whether arbitration had been invoked by the respondent in time and whether the respondent's claim was barred by limitation, were be decided by the learned Arbitrator.