MARSHAL SHARMA Vs. SPYTECH BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimants/appellants have preferred this Civil Misc. Appeal under Sec. 37(1)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with Sec. 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against the Order dtd. 24/6/2022 passed by Commercial Court No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur, whereby objection application filed by the appellants/claimants under Sec. 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the Award dtd. 15/4/2019 was rejected.

(2.) It is contended by counsel for the claimants/appellants that a Development Agreement (hereinafter referred to as 'agreement') was entered into between the appellants and the respondent on 3/9/2009. As per the agreement, the developer was to construct flats, 62% of the constructed area was to be retained by the owner and 38% was to be given to the developer. It is contended that certain disputes cropped-up between the parties and the same were settled under mediation by the Mediator on 20/9/2014. In the Award, following arbitral question was framed by the Arbitrator:-

(3.) It is argued that the appellant-owner quoted the rate per sq. ft @ Rs.15,000.00, whereas the developer quoted the rate @ 5,500/- per sq. ft. The Arbitrator took the middle path and determined the rate @ Rs.10,000.00 per sq. ft. It is also argued that there was no document or material to arrive at the conclusion with regard to rate per sq. ft. It is also contended that a fixed deposit of Rs.50.00 lakh was lying with the appellants. Learned Arbitrator while calculating the share of excess area of 415 sq. ft. with the developer, valued it @ Rs.41,50,000.00 and adjusted with the amount lying with the appellants and directed the appellants to refund an amount of Rs.8,50,000.00 to the developer. It is contended that there was no counter claim by the respondent and the Arbitrator has erred in setting off the amount lying in fixed deposit and has further erred in directing the appellants to refund the amount of Rs.8,50,000.00 and on non-payment, to pay interest thereon. It is also contended that as per the terms of the agreement, all dues towards the State authorities was to be shared in the ratio of 62:38. State authorities have demanded money and the documents pertaining to the same were on record, however, learned Commercial Court in the impugned order has mentioned that no documents have been produced before the Court.