AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.No.,Date,Amount
1.,On or before 20.08.2019,"Â Rs. 7,50,00,000/-
2.,On or before 20.10.2019,"Â Rs. 7,50,00,000/-
3.,On or before 20.12.2019,"Â Rs. 7,50,00,000/-
Forty Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) by the Respondent along with the amount of tax deducted at source, is valid and within its right and scope as",,
provided under the Agreement.,,
In view of the aforesaid finding, there is no question of any refund of the aforesaid amount to the Claimant. The Claim of the Claimant is hence",,
dismissed with the aforesaid observations and the parties are left to bear their own costs with regard to the present arbitration. One separate original,,
set each of this Award shall be provided to both the parties for their record.â€,,
The present petition assails the aforesaid award dated 21st March, 2020 of the learned arbitrator.",,
Ms. Pratibha Upadhyay Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, only advances one argument, which is that, given the fact that the petitioner",,
was placed in dire financial circumstances, and had repeatedly asked for extension of time, the respondent ought not to have forfeited the EMD.",,
This is merely in the nature of a mercy plea. By no stretch of imagination can it constitute a justifiable basis to interfere with the arbitral award,",,
especially in view of the law, in that regard, enunciated by the Supreme Court in Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI (2019) 15 SCC",,
The findings of the arbitrator cannot be said to suffer from perversity or as contrary, in any manner, to the covenants of the Agreement to Sell.",,
Nor can it be said to be violative of any law laid down by any judicial authority or otherwise contrary to public policy.,,
It is well settled that the scope of Section 34 of the 1996 Act is extremely limited and that Courts would not interfere with arbitral awards, even if",,
findings in the arbitral awards may, to the perception of the Court, be erroneous.",,
In the present case, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned award of the arbitrator. The petitioner having been repeatedly in default of",,
making payments in accordance with the Agreement to Sell, no fault can be found with the respondent in seeking to terminate the agreement or forfeit",,
the EMD. The respondent could not be expected to wait ad infinitum, for the petitioner to make payments in accordance with the agreement.",,
No ground, meriting interference with the impugned award, can be said to exist.",,
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine with no orders as to costs.",,
I.A. 2659/2021 (Section 151 CPC for exemption), I.A. 2660/2021 Section 5) and I.A. 2661/2021 (Section 36 (2,3))",,
In view of the order passed in the petition, these applications do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.",,