Karnataka High Court
M/S Fortuna Constructions India Pvt Ltd vs Smt. Shamalamma on 20 July, 2026
-1-
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
ND
RESERVED ON 22 APRIL 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2024
C/W
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO. 190 OF 2024
IN COMAP No.137/2024
BETWEEN:
1. M/S FORTUNA CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PVT LTD
HAVING OFFICE AT
NO.184, FORTUNA HOUSE
OUTER RING ROAD, OPP. NCERT BSK
3RD STAGE, BANASHANKARI
BANGALORE - 560 085
Digitally
signed by REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
SRIDEVI S
MR. PADMAIAH VUPPU
Location:
High Court ...APPELLANT
of Karnataka
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI AJIT P.B., ADVOCATE &
SRI THONTADHARYA R.K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHAMALAMMA
W/O LATE A.N. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS
-2-
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
2. SRI K. NATARAJ
S/O LATE A.N. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED BOUT 54 YEARS
3. MASTER N AKHILESH
S/O K NATARAJ
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS,
4. MASTER N ANIL
S/O K NATARAJ
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
MINOR
REPRESENTED BY HIS
FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
MR K. NATARAJ
5. SRI K GOPALA GOWDA
S/O LATE A N KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
5(a) SMT KAVITHA G
W/O LATE K GOPALA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
5(b). MASTER ARAYAN A.G.
S/O LATE K GOPALA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS
6. MASTER ASHWIN G.A
S/O K. GOPALA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS
BOTH 5(b) & 6
MINOR REPRESENTED BY
-3-
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
THEIR MOTHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. KAVITHA K.
RESPONDENT No.5(a)
7. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE A.N. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
8. SMT. AMMAJAMMA
D/O LATE A.N. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
9. SMT. HEMALATHA
D/O LATE A.N. KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
AVALAHALLI VILLAGE
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
YELAHANKA HOBLI
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT – 560 064
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG WITH
SRI T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE
FOR C/RESPONDENT)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
13(1-A) OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, READ WITH ORDER 37
(1) (C) OF ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN COM.
A.P.NO.98/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED LXXXIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
(COMMERCIAL COURT) (CCH 90) AND SET ASIDE THE
-4-
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
JUDGMENT DATED 30/01/2024, PASSED IN
COM.A.P.NO.98/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED LXXXIX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU,
(COMMERCIAL COURT) (CCH 90) (ANNEXURE A) & ETC.
IN COMAP NO. 190/2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHAMALAMMA
W/O LATE A.N. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
2. SRI K. NATARAJ
S/O LATE A.N. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
3. MASTER N. AKHILESH
S/O K. NATARAJ
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
4. MASTER N ANIL
S/O K. NATARAJ
AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS
MINOR REP. BY HIS FATHER AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN
MR K. NATARAJ
5. SMT. KAVITHA G
W/O LATE K GOPALA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
6. MASTER ARYAN A.G.
S/O LATE K. GOPALA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS
-5-
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
7. MASTER ASHWIN G.A.
S/O K GOPALA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. KAVITHA G
8. SMT. JAYALAKSHMAMMA
D/O LATE A.N. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
9. SMT AMMAJAMMA
D/O. LATE A.N. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
10. SMT. HEMALATHA
D/O LATE A.N. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARSALL ARE RESIDING AT
AVALAHALLI VILLAGE
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST
YELAHANKA HOBLI AND TALUK
BANGALORE DISTRICT – 560 064
…APPELLANTS(BY SRI VIVEK REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE )AND:
1. M/S FORTUNA CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.184
FORTUNA HOUSE, OUTER RING ROAD
OPP. NCERT, BSK 3RD STAGE
BANASHANKARI
-6-
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
BANGALORE – 560 085
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
MR. PADMAIAH VUPPU
2. MR. PADMAIAH VUPPU
S/O ANKAIAH VUPPU
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NO.184, FORTUNA HOUSE
OUTER RING ROAD
OPP: NCERT BSK 3RD STAGE
BANASHANKARI
BANGALORE – 560 085
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI AJIT P.B., ADVOCATE &
SRI THONTADHARYA R.K, ADVOCATE)
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
13 OF COMMERCIAL COURTS ACT, READ WITH ORDER 37 (1)
(C) OF ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT PRAYING TO SET-
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED: 30/01/2024 IN COM. A.P.
NO.128/2023 (CCH:90) PASSED BY THE LXXXIX ADDL. CITY
CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU, AT ANNEXURE-A &
ETC.
THESE COMMERCIAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
-7-
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. These appeals have been preferred under Section 37(1)(c) of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [the A&C Act] read with
Section 13(1A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, assailing a
common judgment dated 30.01.2024 [‘the Impugned Judgment’]
passed by the learned LXXXIX Additional City Civil and Sessions
Judge, Bengaluru [‘the Commercial Court’], in two connected
petitions under Section 34 of the Act, being COM.A.P No.98/2023
and COM.A.P No.128/2023. M/s Fortuna Constructions (India) Pvt.
Ltd. [‘FCIPL’] had filed the petition, COM.A.P No.98/2023, under
Section 34 of the A&C Act, seeking setting aside of an arbitral
award dated 12.06.2023 [the Impugned Award] passed by an
arbitral tribunal comprising of a sole arbitrator [Arbitral Tribunal] in
arbitration conducted under the aegis of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Centre (Domestic and International), Bengaluru.
2. Smt. Shamalamma and her family members, including their
predecessors in interest [‘the Landowners’], Respondents in
COMAP No. 137 of 2024 and the Appellants in COMAP No. 190 of
2024, had filed COM.A.P No.128/2023 before the learned
Commercial Court, assailing the impugned award to the extent of
-8-
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
the monetary award of `65,00,000/- (Rupees sixty five lakhs only) in
favour of FCIPL. The learned Commercial Court found no grounds
to interfere with the impugned award and, accordingly, dismissed
the appeals by the impugned order.
PREFATORY FACTS
3. FCIPL, appellant in COMAP No. 137/2024 and Respondent
No.1 in COMAP No. 190/2024, is engaged in the business of
developing real estate. The Landowners (or their predecessors in
interest) claim to be the absolute owners of the property bearing Sy.
No. 118, new Sy. No. 118/1, measuring 1 Acre, situated at
Avalahalli Village, Singanayakanahalli post, Yelahanka Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluka, Bangalore District [the Subject Property].
4. On 04.03.2013, the Respondent Nos.2 and 5 in COMAP
No.137/2024, along with their late father, Mr A.N. Krishnamurthy,
executed a Memorandum of Understanding [‘the MOU’] with FCIPL,
agreeing to the development of the subject on a joint-venture basis.
Acting upon the MOU, FCIPL paid goodwill of `50,00,027/- (Rupees
fifty lakh and twenty seven only) out of an agreed sum of
`60,00,036/- (Rupees sixty lakh and thirty six only). FCIPL also
claims that it paid the balance of `10,00,009/- (Rupees ten lakh and
nine only) in cash on 26.05.2014; however, the same has not been
-9-
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
accepted by the Arbitral Tribunal. The parties agreed that the
landowners’ share in the constructed area and the undivided
interest in the land would be 34% and FCIPL’s share would be 66%.
5. The Schedule Property was converted from agricultural use to
non-agricultural residential use under the Conversion Order No.
ALN(NAY)SR:233/2013 dated 27.03.2014.
6. In furtherance of the MOU, FCIPL and the Landowners
entered into a registered Joint Development Agreement dated
26.05.2014 [the JDA] for the development of the Schedule Property
into a residential apartment complex. FCIPL paid a refundable
deposit of `2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) to the Landowners
and also agreed to complete the construction within 45 months from
the date of the Sanction Plan. Simultaneously, on the same day, the
Landowners executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of
FCIPL [the GPA], constituting FCIPL as their true and lawful
attorney for the purposes of the project.
7. FCIPL claims that it commenced the work and obtained the
Katha of the Subject Property in the name of the 2nd Respondent in
COMAP No.137/2024. It also applied to the Bangalore Development
Authority [the BDA] for sanction of the building plan on 17.12.2014.
– 10 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
8. The National Green Tribunal [the NGT], by an order dated
07.05.2015, directed that a setback of 15 meters be maintained
from the edge of Raja Kaluves/ Nalas. FCIPL had sought approval
for building plans, leaving a 10-meter buffer zone from the centre of
the nala that runs alongside the Schedule Property. By a letter
dated 18.07.2016, BDA informed FCIPL to furnish revised plans
providing for the buffer zone as directed by the learned NGT.
9. The Landowners state that despite the BDA’s letter dated
18.07.2016, FCIPL took no steps either to obtain a modified plan or
to apprise the Landowners of the requirement.
10. The Landowners issued a legal notice dated 26.03.2018
alleging delay in execution of the development and terminated the
JDA. FCIPL responded by a letter dated 03.04.2018 and attributed
the delay to dispute regarding the buffer zone. The NGT’s order in
question was assailed before the Supreme Court. Thus, FCIPL
called upon the Landowners either to await resolution of the said
proceedings or to accord their consent to a modification of the
sanctioned plan.
11. The challenge to the NGT’s order was adjudicated by the
Supreme Court in its judgment dated 05.03.2019. Thereafter, on
– 11 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
14.05.2019, FCIPL addressed a letter to the BDA seeking
reconsideration of the plan for approval, while the Landowners sent
a representation requesting the BDA not to accord plan sanction.
The landowners lodged a complaint against FCIPL for failing to
rectify the objections. The Landowners also issued legal notices
dated 23.07.2020 and 07.08.2020, which were not served due to the
disruption occasioned by the COVID-19 pandemic and FCIPL’s
shifting of its office.
12. The Landowners filed an application under Section 11 of the
A&C Act, C.M.P.No.134/2020 before this Court, which was allowed
by an order dated 15.01.2021 and a Sole Arbitrator was appointed
to adjudicate the disputes between the parties.
13. The Landowners, as Claimants, filed their Statement of Claim
seeking a declaration that the JDA was invalid and cancelled. They
also sought an award permitting them to develop the Schedule
Property, returning the original title documents for the Schedule
Property, and restraining FCIPL from interfering with, alienating,
encumbering, or creating any charge over the Schedule Property.
14. FCIPL, as the Respondent in the arbitral proceedings, filed its
Statement of Objection along with a Counter-Claim stating that it
– 12 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
was willing to perform the obligations of the JDA and that the project
was held up awaiting the outcome of the matter before the Supreme
Court arising from the order of the NGT.
15. FCIPL contended that the Claim Petition is not maintainable
and that the claims are liable to be dismissed because the
landowners suppressed several vital and material facts. FCIPL also
contended that the claim petition was barred by limitation.
16. During the pendency of the arbitral proceedings, FCIPL filed
an application dated 09.02.2023 under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking appointment of a Court
Commissioner to conduct a local inspection and submit a report,
along with a sketch, as to whether a Raja Kaluve existed on either
side of the Schedule Property, and the category thereof. By the
order dated 12.03.2023, the learned Sole Arbitrator dismissed the
said application, holding that it would amount to the collection of
evidence.
17. The arbitral proceedings culminated in the impugned award.
The dispositive part of the Impugned Award is set out below:
“a) The Claim of the Claimants is partly allowed
b) The Counter-Claim of the Respondent is partly –
allowed
– 13 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
A. Ex. P1 Joint Development Agreement and
Ex.R.5 General Power of Attorney stand cancelled
as prayed for subject to payment of Rs.65,00,000/-
awarded as counter-claim by the Claimants to the
Respondent
B. The Respondent or their agents or anybody
claiming under or through the Respondent, are
permanently restrained from interfering with the
possession and enjoyment of the Schedule
Property by the Claimants.
C. The Claimants shall pay Rs.65,00,000/- to the
Respondent within a period of three months from
the date of award – failing which, the Respondent
is at liberty to recover the same in accordance with
law.
c) The stamp duty is payable as per Karnataka
Stamp Act.
d) The award is signed and issued in 3 originals,
one for record of Arbitration Centre and rest of the
two to each of the parties”
18. Following the Impugned Award, an application under Section
33 of the Act was moved before the learned Sole Arbitrator seeking
a direction that the Award be transmitted to the sub-registrar for
registration of the cancellation of the JDA and the GPA, and for
return of the original documents produced by the parties before the
Arbitral Tribunal. The said application was allowed by the order
dated 05.08.2023. Pursuant to the letter dated 10.08.2023
addressed by the Director, Arbitration Centre, to the Sub-Registrar,
Gandhinagar, Bengaluru, the JDA and the GPA came to be
– 14 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
cancelled by the cancellation deed dated 25.08.2023 and a Nil
Encumbrance Certificate for the period from 01.04.2023 to
26.08.2023 was also obtained in respect of the Schedule Property.
19. Aggrieved by the Impugned Award, FCIPL filed a petition
under Section 34 of the A&C Act, before the Commercial Court,
seeking to set aside the Impugned Award. FCIPL’s challenge
proceeded principally on the grounds that the Impugned Award was
patently illegal and opposed to the fundamental policy of Indian law
and public policy as:
(a) The learned Sole Arbitrator erred in granting the relief of
cancelling the JDA and GPA dated 26/05/204 as the
same is violative of the Contract Act and the specific
terms of the JDA and GPA. Further, the cancellation of
the GPA is patently illegal as the same was not prayed
for, hence the same is liable to be set aside.
(b) The learned Sole Arbitrator ignored vital evidences in
concluding that the FCIPL is also liable for the breach
of the JDA.
(c) The learned Sole Arbitrator erred in refusing to direct
the Landowners to pay the entire amount spent by the
– 15 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
FCIPL and only allowing a sum of Rs.65,00,000/ that
too without awarding any interest.
20. The Landowners also filed a petition under Section 34 of the
Act assailing the Impugned Award only insofar as it allowed FCIPL’s
Counter-Claim and directed payment of `65,00,000/- (Rupees sixty
five lakh only) by the Landowners to FCIPL as:
(a) The learned Sole Arbitrator erred in allowing for
payment of `65,00,000/- (Rupees sixty five lakh only) to
FCIPL by the Landowners as it is bad in law, patently
illegal and against the law on the basis of MOU, JDA,
the terms of contract and the award itself as it
contradicts the conditions stipulated therein.
(b) Once the Arbitrator cancelled the JDA and GPA, the
question of allowing the counter claim did not arise.
21. The Commercial Court framed two points for determination,
namely: (i) whether the parties in their respective petitions had
made out grounds for interference; and (ii) what order ought to
follow.
– 16 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
22. Applying the well-settled limits and principles on the exercise
of jurisdiction under Section 34 of the A&C Act, the Commercial
Court held that neither the prayer of the Landowners to partially set
aside the Award qua the Counter-Claim, nor the prayer of FCIPL for
a remand for fresh adjudication of the Counter-Claim was available
in law.
23. The Commercial Court held that the learned Sole Arbitrator
had rightly rejected the Landowners’ contention that the BDA was
not the competent authority to sanction the plan, and had correctly
appreciated the Supreme Court’s order dated 05.03.2019 modifying
the manner of measuring the buffer zone. Further, no interference
was required with the Arbitral Tribunal’s findings regarding the
mutual breach by the parties; the failure of the Landowners to
extend cooperation to FCIPL’s efforts to obtain a modified plan;
causing hindrances, including by lodging police complaints; and
failure on the part of FCIPL to prove the delay was wholly beyond its
control.
24. The Commercial Court observed that the Arbitral Tribunal had
rightly concluded that the continuation of the JDA was not warranted
and that the cancellation of the GPA naturally followed the
cancellation of the JDA, as it was executed to facilitate the JDA. The
– 17 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
Commercial Court further endorsed the direction restoring the
parties to their pre-contract position by payment of `65,00,000/-
(Rupees sixty five lakh only) to FCIPL, without interest.
25. On the Counter-Claim, the Commercial Court held that the
determination of the Landowners’ liability at `65,00,000/- (Rupees
sixty five lakh only), as against the larger sum of `1,98,82,036/-
(Rupees one crore ninety eight lakh eighty two thousand thirty six
only) originally claimed by FCIPL, was a finding of fact arrived at
after a meticulous consideration of the exhibits and oral evidence,
which could not be interfered with. Regarding the question of
limitation and misjoinder of parties, the Commercial Court held that
the learned Arbitral Tribunal had correctly analysed the material on
record and rightly answered both objections.
26. The Commercial Court held that the learned Sole Arbitrator
had assigned proper and convincing reasons in partly accepting the
claim of the Landowners and partly allowing the Counter-Claim of
FCIPL, and that neither party had made out grounds to set aside the
impugned award in its entirety, or to modify it, or to remand the
matter for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the Commercial Court
dismissed both Com. A.P.No.98/2023 and Com. A.P.No.128/2023.
– 18 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
27. Aggrieved by the Impugned Judgment, the parties have filed
the present appeals.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS
28. Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel appearing for
FCIPL, assailed the impugned award on the solitary ground that the
conclusion was inconsistent with the findings. He contended that
although the findings of the Arbitral Tribunal were in favour of
FCIPL, the Arbitral Tribunal had rendered the impugned award in
effect acceding to the prayers made by the landowners. He
submitted that the Arbitral Tribunal had considered that the same
was in the interest of justice and equity. However, the arbitration
agreement (arbitration clause in the JDA) did not empower the
Arbitral Tribunal to act as ex aequo et bono. He referred to
paragraph no. 77 of the impugned award and pointed out that the
Arbitral Tribunal had expressly decided the issue regarding
cancellation of the JDA, “in the interest of justice and equity”. He
contended that the impugned Arbitral award had acted beyond its
jurisdiction; therefore the impugned award was liable to be set
aside.
– 19 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
29. Mr. Reddy countered the aforesaid submissions. He referred
to Paragraph No.58 of the impugned award and submitted that the
Arbitral Tribunal had also found that FCIPL had defaulted in its
obligations and thus rightly declined to allow FCIPL’s prayer for
specific performance. He readily conceded that in view of the
factual findings, the land owners’ challenge to the award for return
of the funds to FCIPL would not be sustainable.
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS
30. At the outset, it is relevant to bear in mind that the landowners
were the claimants before the Arbitral Tribunal. They had filed the
statement of claim, inter alia, praying as under:
a) “Declare that the Joint Development
Agreement dated 26/05/2014 in No. GNR-1-
00597/2014-15, stored in Book No. 1, CD
No.GNRD91, registered in the Office of Senior Sub-
Registrar, Ganganagar (Gandhi Nagara),
Bangalore is invalid and cancelled and to pass
award, and consequently permit the Claimants to
develop the Schedule Property at their will and nil
encumbrances.
b) Grant injunction against the respondents,
restraining the Respondents from interfering,
alienating or encumbering or creating any charge
on the Schedule Property in favour of any third
party either in part or in the form of flats.
c) Direct the Respondents to return the original
title documents of the Claimants Schedule Property
including original JDA dated 26.05.2014.
– 20 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
d) Grant such other relief’s as this Hon’ble court
may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the
case along with by awarding the costs of the
litigation in the interest of justice and equity.”
31. As is apparent from the above, the landowners sought a
declaration that the JDA is invalid and cancelled. They sought an
award permitting development of the subject property at their will
without any encumbrance. Additionally, they sought a direction
restraining the FCIPL from interfering with the subject property and
directing the return of the original documents in its possession.
32. It would be relevant to refer to the averments made in the
statement of claim setting out the grounds on which the aforesaid
reliefs were claimed. The landowners stated that, under the JDA,
FCIPL had given an undertaking to obtain approved plans to build
apartments as required within 3 months; thereafter, start
construction within 3 months; and complete the same within 33
months, with a grace period of 6 months. The landowners
contended that, as per the JDA, construction was required to be
completed within a maximum of 45 months, a deadline that expired
in February, 2017. They claimed that although time was of the
essence of the contract, FCIPL had not taken steps to obtain the
approved plan and had failed to start construction. Additionally, they
– 21 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
claimed that FCIPL had not paid the goodwill amount and the
agreed advance, but had paid a meagre `2,00,000/- (Rupees two
lakh only) towards a refundable advance.
33. The landowners claimed that they issued a legal notice dated
26.03.2018 to FCIPL to comply with the conditions of the JDA and
to cancel the same. However, FCIPL did not respond to the said
notice. They claimed that FCIPL also failed to comply with the
demands made in the legal notice dated 26.03.2018. Thereafter, the
landowners issued another notice dated 23.06.2020 under clause
26 of the JDA, and called upon the FCIPL to consent to the
cancellation of the JDA, pay damages, and return the original
documents. However, the said notice was returned unserved
because FCIPL had shifted its office. The subsequent notice dated
07.08.2020 was also returned for the same reason.
34. The landowners alleged that FCIPL had collected crores of
rupees from third parties by showing the subject property. But, it did
not take any steps to raise the construction as it had no intention of
completing the construction of the residential apartments.
35. It is also relevant to refer to paragraph 10 of the statement of
claims, which is set out below:
– 22 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
“10. Though the Petitioners are ready and
willing to perform their part of obligation as per
the terms and conditions of the Joint
Development Agreement dated: 26/05/2014,
and Respondents are not able to do any of the
work. That inspite of granting sufficient time,
the Respondents are not performing their part
of obligation Respondents have not taken any
initiative action in the matter and thereby
caused heavy loss to Petitioners for the last 7
years.”
36. It is the Landowners’ case that they were ready and willing to
perform their obligations under the JDA, but FCIPL was unable to
complete the works. FCIPL disputed the said claim. Thus, the
principal dispute before the Arbitral Tribunal was (a) whether FCIPL
had breached the terms of the agreement by not commencing the
construction within the time stipulated; and b) whether FCIPL’s
failure to do so was despite the Landowners being ready and willing
to perform their obligations. The Arbitral Tribunal was also required
to consider the allegation that FCIPL had failed to pay the amounts
as contemplated under the JDA.
37. FCIPL filed the statement of defence, inter alia, praying as
under :
“34. The Respondents pray that to dismiss the
Claim Petition and direct the Claimants to co-
operate for the developmental of Schedule
Property as agreed in JOINT DEVELOPMENT
– 23 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
AGREEMENT and if at all if this Hon’ble
Arbitrator comes to the conclusion that the
Claimants are entitle for the relief of
cancellation of JOINT DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT and return of Original
documents and in that event, Claimants may
be directed to return/ refund the amount
received by them, with the expenses incurred
on the project as shown above i.e. in all Rs.
1,98,82,036/- (Rupees One Crore ninety eight
Lakhs eighty two thousand thirty six only)
together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
from the date of JOINT DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT, till its realization. It is submitted
that, due to the change of usage of lands i.e.
conversion of lands, the land value is also
appreciated considerably and apart from
conversion also the land value has been
considerably increased from year 2014 and
the Claimants are also liable to compensate
for the same to the Respondents. Hence these
Respondents are entitle to continue with the
development work and for any reasons if this
Hon’ble Arbitrator comes to the conclusion
that the JOINT DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT needs to be cancelled and in
that event order for payment of Rs.
1,98,82,036/- (Rupees One Crore ninety eight
Lakhs eighty two thousand thirty six only) to
the Respondents.”
38. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the learned Sole Arbitrator
framed ten issues for determination, namely:
“1. Whether the Claimant proves that the
Respondent has violated the terms and conditions
of Joint Development agreement dated
26.05.2014?
2. Whether the Claimant proves that they are
entitled for cancellation of Joint Development
agreement dated 26.05.2014?
– 24 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
3. Whether the Claimant proves that they are
entitled for a declaration that the Joint Development
agreement dated 26.05.2014 is invalid and entitled
to develop the Schedule Property?
4. Whether the Claimant proves that they are
entitled for injunction, as prayed for?
5, Whether Respondent proves that it was not able
to complete the project due to circumstances
beyond its control?
6. Whether the respondent proves that the
Claimant has committed breach of the terms and
conditions of Joint Development agreement dated
26.05.2014?
7. Whether the respondent proves that they are
entitled for an amount of Rs.1,98,82,036/- claimed
in counter-claim?
8. Whether the Respondents prove that the claim of
the Claimants is barred by time?
9. Whether the Respondents prove that the claim of
the Claimants is bad for mis-joinder of parties?
10. What award/ order?”
39. The Arbitral Tribunal considered issues Nos.1, 5 and 6
together, that is, whether the landowners proved that FCIPL had
violated the terms of the JDA; whether FCIPL proved that it was
unable to complete the project due to circumstances beyond its
control; and whether the landowners had committed breach of the
terms and conditions of the JDA.
40. As noted above, the landowners’ case is that FCPIL had
breached the terms and conditions is premised on the ground that
– 25 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
FCPIL had failed to complete construction within the outer limit of 45
months from the date of the JDA. The MoU dated 04.03.2013
expressly recorded the landowners’ acknowledgement that they had
received a sum of `50,00,027/- (Rupees fifty lakh and twenty seven
only) from FCIPL, and that the balance amount of 10,00,009/-
(Rupees ten lakh and nine only) would be payable at the time of
registration of the JDA. The JDA was executed and registered on
26.05.2014.
41. Article 8 of the JDA, which, according to the land owners, had
been breached by FCIPL is set out below:
“8. COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
WORK:
8.1 The SECOND PARTY/DEVELOPER
shall commence the construction work on the
Schedule Property within Three months from
the date of obtaining sanction of the building
plan. The quality of construction shall be in
accordance with the specifications contained
hereunder or equivalent thereto. The quality of
material used shall confirm to ISI codes or
equivalent thereto.
8.2 The FIRST PARTY/OWNER shall
extend full co-operation to the SECOND
PARTY/DEVELOPER in executing the project
on the Schedule Property and completing
construction work of the Apartment Complex.
The FIRST PARTY/OWNER shall not create
any impediment or obstruction in the way of
the SECOND PARTY/DEVELOPER in
developing or constructing the Apartment
complex. The authorised
– 26 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
agents/representatives of the FIRST
PARTY/OWNER shall be at liberty to visit the
construction site.
8.3 The SECOND PARTY/DEVELOPER
may, agreed to execute additional items of
work as may be required by the FIRST
PARTY/OWNER on separately and mutually
agreed terms/and/or rates or that the FIRST
PARTY/OWNER shall be at liberty to get any
additional items of work done by their own
agency only after possession is handed over
to them by the SECOND
PARTY/DEVELOPER.
8.4 The SECOND PARTY/DEVELOPER
shall have absolute right over the method,
manner and design of construction the
residential complex.”
42. The Arbitral Tribunal found that FCIPL was required to
commence construction within 3 months of obtaining sanction for
the building plans and to complete construction within 39 months
(including a 6-month grace period). The JDA did not specify the time
frame within which FCIPL was to apply for and obtain sanction for
the building plans. In light of this, the Arbitral Tribunal held that
FCIPL was required to apply for sanction for the building plans
within a reasonable period. The relevant extract of the impugned
award is set out below:
“52… I may also mention here that
unfortunately, either in Ex.R.1 Memorandum of
Understanding or Ex.P.1 Joint Development
Agreement, no time limit is prescribed for
obtaining sanctioned plan. When no time limit
– 27 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
is fixed for doing certain things, the same
cannot be postponed indefinitely and such an
obligation has to be performed within a
‘reasonable time’.
43. It is relevant to note that one of the principal assertions on
which the landowners had premised their claim is that FCIPL had
not applied for approval of the building plans. The Arbitral Tribunal
rejected the said contention as the Arbitral Tribunal found sufficient
evidence on record to establish that FCIPL had applied for the
sanction of a building plan on 17.12.2014.
44. The next question that fell for consideration of the Arbitral
Tribunal was whether there were any further defaults by FCIPL in
proceeding with the sanction plan. The Arbitral Tribunal found that
FCIPL’s request for sanction was not processed and the Bangalore
Development Authority (BDA) had sent a letter dated 18.07.2016
(Ex.R.17) directing the FCIPL to leave a buffer zone in terms of the
order passed by the National Green Tribunal [NGT] and resubmit
the plans for sanctions.
45. FCIPL stated that there was a Raja Kaluve/Nala at the edge
of the subject land; therefore, FCIPL had applied for the building
plans, leaving a buffer area of 10 meters from the centre of the
– 28 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
Nala. However, under the NGT’s decision, it was now required to
maintain a buffer of 15 meters from the edge of the Nala. FCIPL
claims that this would have substantially reduced the area available
for construction, and thus it did not proceed with construction as the
NGT’s order was under challenge before the Supreme Court.
46. The pleadings and the impugned award indicate that the
learned NGT’s order was challenged before the Supreme Court in
Civil Appeal No. 5016/2016, which was disposed of by an order
dated 05.03.2019.
47. In the meantime, the landowners sent a legal notice dated
26.03.2018 (Ex.P2) terminating the JDA and further demanding a
sum of 60,00,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) as well as the
original title deeds of the said property on account of alleged losses
suffered by them.
48. The Arbitral Tribunal was thus required to examine the merits
of the FCIPL’s defence that it had not resubmitted the plans,
pending the decision of the order passed by the NGT.
49. In this regard, the Arbitral Tribunal found that there was Raja
Kaluve/ Halla / Kharab Kaluve on the subject land. And, if the orders
– 29 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
of the NGT and the Hon’ble Supreme Court are taken into
consideration, the parties were at a disadvantage under the order of
the NGT. Thus, in effect, the Arbitral Tribunal accepted FCIPL’s
contention that if the construction was raised while the NGT’s order
was subsisting, the same would be disadvantageous to the interest
of the parties.
50. The Arbitral Tribunal also found that FCIPL had sent a letter
dated 04.05.2019 to the BDA, informing the BDA of the order dated
05.03.2019 passed by the Supreme Court setting aside the NGT’s
order. FCIPL stated that thus the buffer zone as contemplated
earlier would be applicable and it had prepared a new building plan
and had also filed an undertaking affidavit. FCIPL requested BDA
to approve the building plans. However, BDA did not process the
plans as some of the landowners had given a representation dated
12.06.2019 not to proceed with the plans.
51. In his cross-examination, PW1 affirmed that it had given a
letter to BDA not to sanction building plans as the time period
stipulated for completion of the project under the JDA had expired in
the year 2017-2018.
– 30 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
52. The landowners had also filed a police complaint with Ulsoor
Police Station. In the aforesaid backdrop, the Arbitral Tribunal
concluded that the landowners had obstructed the grant of the
building plans and had created hindrances in FCIPL proceeding with
the development of the subject land.
53. It is relevant to note that the Arbitral Tribunal also took into
account FCIPL’s letter dated 03.04.2018 (Ex.R14), sent in response
to the landowners’ legal notice dated 26.03.2018 (Ex.P2). FCIPL
had denied the allegations in the legal notice dated 26.03.2018, but
also expressed its willingness to modify the building plans to
increase the buffer area and thus reduce the buildable area in
conformity with NGT’s order. The relevant extract of the said letter,
is reproduced below:
“Our client states that if your clients are ready
to take proportionate share in the project as
per ratio 33% of SBA in the new building plan
in view of NGT new order, then my client is
ready and willing to modify the drawings of the
building Plan as per the NGT order by leaving
buffer zone as per the NGT order. Then your
clients will get lesser SBA area and
proportionately our client is also getting lesser
area.
Therefore, our client states that your clients
can’t forfeit the amount as mentioned in the
notice and also they are not liable to terminate
the JDA as he is performing his obligations as
agreed up on without delay, hence, he is not at
– 31 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
all liable to pay any amount towards losses to
your clients.
Therefore, kindly advise your clients to co-
operate with our client to resolve buffer zone
issue and to get building license, approval of
building Plan, NOC, required approvals from
concerned departments to fulfil the obligations
as agreed up on in the JDA Dtd.26.05.2014.”
54. However, the impugned award does not render any specific
finding on the aforesaid defence. The Arbitral Tribunal’s findings
are summarised as under:
54.1 That there was no time limit to apply for the
sanction plan, and therefore FCIPL was to apply for
the same within a reasonable period.
54.2 FCIPL had, in fact, applied for the sanction
plan on 17.12.2014, therefore, there was no default
on the part of FCIPL in this regard.
54.3 There was a Raja Kaluve / Nala / Kharab
Kaluve beside the subject property which required
FCIPL to provide for a setback from the edge of the
said Raja Kaluve / Nala / Kharab Kaluve.
– 32 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
54.4 NGT had passed an order increasing the
buffer zone by directing the same to extend to 15
meters from the edge of the Rakja Kulawe/Nala,
instead of 10 meters from its centre.
54.5 The said order was disadvantageous to the
parties as it would reduce the area that could be
constructed and the floor area that could be built.
54.6 The NGT’s order was the subject matter of
challenge before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal
No.5016/2016 (Mantri Tech Zone Private Limited
v. Forward Foundation and others1) and the
Supreme Court had passed an order dated
05.03.2019 setting aside the learned NGT’s order.
Consequently, the extent of the buffer zone was
restored to as it was prior to the NGT’s order.
54.6 FCIPL had approached the BDA seeking
approval of the new building plan immediately after
the Supreme Court’s order.
1
(2019) 18 SCC 494
– 33 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
54.7 Some of the land owners had sent a letter
objecting to the same and had also filed a police
complaint to the Ulsoor Police Station and had thus
created hindrances for FCIPL to perform its
obligations.
55. In addition to the above finding, the Arbitral Tribunal faulted
the landowners’ conduct. The Arbitral Tribunal observed that the
landowners were not truthful or straightforward and their conduct
was not above board. Further, the Arbitral Tribunal observed that
under the JDA it was the duty of the landowners to co-operate with
FCIPL in getting the approval of the sanction plan and other related
matters.
56. Although the principal findings are adverse to the landowners,
the Arbitral Tribunal also found that FCIPL was also responsible for
non-completion of the apartment complex and held that FCIPL had
also defaulted in performing its obligations. Paragraph 58 of the
impugned award which records the Arbitral Tribunal’s conclusion in
regard to issues 1 to 3 is as under:
“58. At the same time, I may also mention
here that after receiving Letter, seeking the
clarification, from the Bangalore Development
Authority as mentioned above, the
– 34 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
Respondent has also not taken effective steps
in the matter. If the overall evidence on
records is taken into consideration, in my
opinion, both the Claimants and the
Respondent are responsible for non-
completion of the construction of Apartment
Complex and also in performing the duty and
obligation against each other. Hence, I hold
that both the Claimants and the Respondents
are able to prove against each other that they
have committed violation of terms and
conditions of Ex.R.1 Memorandum of
Understanding and Ex.P.1 Joint Development
Agreement. Hence, I hold that the Respondent
has failed to prove that it was not able to
complete the project due to the circumstances
beyond its control.”
57. The Arbitral Tribunal considered the landowner’s prayer in
light of the aforesaid findings. As noted above, the landowners had
prayed for a declaration that the JDA is invalid and cancelled. The
landowners had terminated the JDA by a letter dated 26.03.2018
(Ex P2) sent through their advocate. Paragraph 8 of the said letter
read as under:
“8. Our Client instructs to state that in view of
above, our client is constrained to terminate
the JDA dated 26.05.2014 and deal with the
said property by themselves and/or through
their nominees/agents/ Legal Heirs.
Furthermore, the Advance amounts paid
under the said JDA dated 26.05.2014 is
forfeited for the losses suffered by our clients
and breaches committed by yourself, further
you are liable to pay a sum of Rs.60,00,000/-
(Rupees Sixty Lakhs Only) as the losses
suffered by our clients for the loss of
opportunity and the undue delay caused by
– 35 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
you and other incidental losses suffered by our
clients, which you ought to pay within 15 days
from the date of receipt of this notice, failing
which, our clients have instructed us to initiate
suitable legal proceedings against you for the
recovery of the same at your expense.”
58. The Arbitral Tribunal found that although the landowners had
created hindrances, FCIPL had not taken effective steps for
performance of its obligations. Indisputably, the said view is a
plausible one and we are unable to accept that the said conclusion
vitiates the impugned award by patent illegality. Although there is
specific finding in regard to FCIPL’s defence to the effect that it had
refrained from filing revised plans as the challenge to the NGT’s
order was pending, it is apparent that the Arbitral Tribunal did not
accept that defence.
59. Given the aforesaid conclusion, the Arbitral Tribunal’s
decision to accept that the JDA is terminated, would warrant no
interference. The refusal to accept the cancellation of the JDA, in
effect amounts to holding that the JDA subsists and the parties are
not absolved from performing their obligations under the JDA. In
effect, the same would amount to allowing the counterclaim for the
specific performance of the JDA, as sought for by FCIPL. However,
in view of the finding that FCIPL was in breach of its obligations
– 36 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
under the JDA, the impugned award cannot be held to be patently
illegal for not granting the said relief.
60. In the aforesaid context, the Arbitral Tribunal held as under:
“77. The Claimants have prayed for
declaration to declare that Ex.P.1 Joint
Development Agreement is invalid, they have
also prayed for cancellation of Ex.P.1 Joint
Development Agreement and consequential
relief of injunction.
Ex.R.1 Memorandum of Understanding is
dated 4.3.2013. Ex.P.1 Joint Development
Agreement is dated 26.5.2014. I have already
held that both the parties are at fault and as a
result, the project could not be completed. The
contracts in question are now more than 10
years old. Though there is nothing to indicate
that Ex.P.1 Joint Development Agreement is
invalid, looking to the relationship between the
Claimants and the Respondent, the conduct of
each of them and the time that has lapsed
after execution of the contract, it is in the
interest of justice and equity that Ex.P.1 Joint
Development Agreement is cancelled. …”
61. There is merit in the contention that the Arbitral Tribunal is
required to decide in accordance with law unless the parties
expressly agree otherwise. Section 28(2) of the A&C Act expressly
provides that:
– 37 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
“28. Rules applicable to substance of
dispute.
** ** **
(2) The arbitral tribunal shall decide ex
aequo et bono or as amiable compositeur
only if the parties have expressly authorised
it to do so.”
62. However, a plain reading of the impugned award shows that
the Arbitral Tribunal accepted that the cancellation of the JDA for
the reason that both the parties had defaulted in their obligations.
63. The construction of the apartment complex was inordinately
delayed, and indisputably, there have been long periods of inactivity
on the part of FCIPL. Thus, the Arbitral Tribunal faulted FCIPL for
the delay and non-performance of the JDA. It is apparent that this is
the principal reason for the Arbitral Tribunal not acceding to FCIPL’s
prayer for directing specific performance of the JDA. A party that
has defaulted in performing the contract may not be entitled to the
specific performance of the contract, notwithstanding that the other
party had also breached its obligations.
64. The observation of the Arbitral Tribunal that it was in the
interest of justice and equity to cancel the JDA, in effect denying its
– 38 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
specific performance, must be read in conjunction with the finding
that both parties were in default of their obligations.
65. Whilst the Arbitral Tribunal declined to direct specific
performance of the JDA, it accepted that FCIPL is entitled to the
amounts expended on the project. The Arbitral Tribunal had
examined the evidence and found that FCIPL had failed to establish
that it had expended a sum of `1,98,82,036/- (Rupees one crore
ninety eight lakh eighty two thousand and thirty six only) for the
project as claimed. However, the Arbitral Tribunal found that FCIPL
had established that it had paid/expended an aggregate amount of
`64,12,405/- (Rupees sixty four lakh twelve thousand four hundred
and five only). Accordingly, the Arbitral Tribunal rounded off the said
amount and awarded an amount of `65,00,000/- (Rupees sixty five
lakh only).
66. We also consider it apposite to refer to the following extract
from the decision of the Supreme Court in Dyna Technologies (P)
Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd2:
” 34. The mandate under Section 31(3) of the
Arbitration Act is to have reasoning which is
intelligible and adequate and, which can in
appropriate cases be even implied by the2
(2019) 20 SCC 1
– 39 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
courts from a fair reading of the award and
documents referred to thereunder, if the need
be. The aforesaid provision does not require
an elaborate judgment to be passed by the
arbitrators having regard to the speedy
resolution of dispute.
35. When we consider the requirement of a
reasoned order, three characteristics of a
reasoned order can be fathomed. They are:
proper, intelligible and adequate. If the
reasonings in the order are improper, they
reveal a flaw in the decision-making process.
If the challenge to an award is based on
impropriety or perversity in the reasoning, then
it can be challenged strictly on the grounds
provided under Section 34 of the Arbitration
Act. If the challenge to an award is based on
the ground that the same is unintelligible, the
same would be equivalent of providing no
reasons at all. Coming to the last aspect
concerning the challenge on adequacy of
reasons, the Court while exercising jurisdiction
under Section 34 has to adjudicate the validity
of such an award based on the degree of
particularity of reasoning required having
regard to the nature of issues falling for
consideration. The degree of particularity
cannot be stated in a precise manner as the
same would depend on the complexity of the
issue. Even if the Court comes to a conclusion
that there were gaps in the reasoning for the
conclusions reached by the Tribunal, the Court
needs to have regard to the documents
submitted by the parties and the contentions
raised before the Tribunal so that awards with
inadequate reasons are not set aside in casual
and cavalier manner. On the other hand,
ordinarily unintelligible awards are to be set
aside, subject to party autonomy to do away
with the reasoned award. Therefore, the
courts are required to be careful while
distinguishing between inadequacy of reasons
in an award and unintelligible awards.
– 40 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
67. In the present case, whilst the impugned award records
elaborate reasons for finding the landowners in default of their
obligations and for creating hindrances, the reason for finding FCIPL
in default is very brief; FCIPL had not taken effective steps after
receiving a letter from BDA to submit fresh plans. There is no
discussion in the impugned award regarding FCIPL’s contention that
it was awaiting decision on the challenge to the NGT’s order, as the
buildable space had been considerably reduced. It is apparent that
the Arbitral Tribunal has not accepted the said explanation. The
reasons on which the impugned award is founded are not
unintelligible. Since the Arbitral Tribunal also found the landowners
to be in default, it has awarded the amounts deposited and
expended by FCIPL, in its favour.
68. The scope of examination under Section 34 of the A&C Act
does not permit the court to re-evaluate the evidence, re-adjudicate
the disputes and supplant its opinion in place of that of the Arbitral
Tribunal. It is well settled that so long as the Arbitral Tribunal’s view
is a plausible one, no interference would be warranted.
– 41 –
COMAP No. 137 of 2024
C/W COMAP No. 190 of 2024
69. In the given circumstances, we are unable to accept that the
impugned award is vitiated by patent illegality or is in conflict with
the public policy of India.
70. The appeals are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
SD/AHB
