SWAN ENERGY LIMITED Vs. PENINSULA LAND LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This is a petition filed under Sec. 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, whereby order dtd. 20/10/2022, passed by the learned arbitrator under Sec. 17 of the said Act, has been challenged. By the said order, an application filed by the petitioner (original claimant) was dismissed.

(3.) Shorn of unnecessary details, for the limited purpose of considering the present petition, the relevant facts of the present case are that the petitioner and the respondent entered into a development agreement dtd. 30/3/2004, whereby the development of three properties belonging to the petitioner was to be undertaken, two properties located in Kurla at Mumbai and one in Sewree at Mumbai. The development agreement specifically provided that the proceeds would be shared in the ratio of 78:22, between the petitioner and the respondent. Disputes appear to have arisen between the parties during the course of execution of the said development agreement, leading to appointment of an arbitrator. In the proceedings before the learned arbitrator, the petitioner filed an application under Sec. 17 of the said Act, seeking certain interim reliefs. It is an admitted position that when the impugned order was passed by the learned arbitrator, the petitioner pressed only prayer clauses (b) and (c) in the said application. The said prayer clauses read as follows: