PRIYA HIRANANDANI VANDREVALA Vs. NIRANJAN HIRANANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed by the petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act in short) with the following prayers: -

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that she entered into a contract with her father (respondent No.1) and her brother (respondent No.2) to jointly undertake construction -cum -development in the Indian real estate sector. The contract, i.e. Business Association Agreement (hereinafter "BAA"), was executed on May 14, 2006. According to the petitioner, it set out the manner in which the contracting parties would set up a joint venture/corporate structure through which the business would jointly be undertaken. It is also averred that the BAA contained a narrow exception clause, by which certain expressly enumerated existing projects were excluded from the scope of the BAA and respondents were permitted to continue these projects outside of the BAA.

(3.) Disputes between the parties began to emerge in the year 2009, when it came to her notice that the respondents were continuing to develop projects outside the BAA, even though these projects were not part of the excluded projects enumerated in the BAA. The petitioner invoked the arbitration agreement, by a notice of arbitration dated February 5, 2010. The Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three learned Members was constituted and the arbitration was held under the Rules and auspices of the LCIA. The seat of arbitration was in Delhi. It is her case that she filed a Statement of Claim but there was no counter claim by the respondents in the arbitration. According to her, arbitral tribunal bifurcated the arbitration proceedings into a Liability Phase and a Quantum Phase. By its Partial Award dated September 18, 2013, the Arbitral Tribunal ruled substantially in her favour on liability. According to her, the tribunal declared, inter alia, that it had jurisdiction over the dispute, that the BAA was valid and enforceable and the respondents had breached several clauses of the BAA, and that the petitioner was entitled to damages for lost profits in relation to the respondents' breaches in respect of the projects Kandivali, Maitri Park, Chennai Additional Lands, Chennai Outside Lands, and Palur. According to her, the Tribunal also determined the costs against the respondents as 75% of the arbitration costs and 75% of the claimant's legal costs and fees through the liability stage, in an amount to be determined later. It is averred that the actual amount to be awarded in damages was to be quantified during the quantum phase of the arbitration proceedings.