Yogesh Khanna JUDGMENT
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. This appeal questions the judgment of a learned single judge dismissing objections to an arbitration award, preferred by a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act" for short, hereafter). The present appellant (referred to in this judgment as "Kiri") had filed the petition, challenging the award of an arbitral tribunal dated 07.11.2014.
2. Kiri had entered into an Agreement to Sell vast stretches of agricultural land, with the respondent/Claimants, on 01.12.2009. The agreement stipulated the consideration for land in question as ` 12,99,00,000/- and that it was free from all encumbrances, injunctions, court orders etc. Part payment was made to Kiri. The balance amount of ` 11,49,00,000/- was payable on or before 2010. The agreement also provided that the said amount was to be paid at the time of handing over of the possession along with execution of Sale Deed in favour of the respondents or their nominee.
3. After execution of the agreement, the claimant became aware that the subject of the agreement, i.e. the land in question was notified for land acquisition- proceedings and notices under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been issued long before, i.e. in the year 1995/1997. Furthermore, even an award had been made which was challenged in a writ petition preferred by Kiri, which was finally disposed of in 2012. Yet notices were issued to Government of NCT of Delhi in a writ petition filed in November, 2012 challenging the said public notice.
4. The claimant invoked the arbitration clause; a former judge of this court (who retired as Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court) was appointed as the arbitrator. The tribunal considered the entire record, i.e. the pleadings, the documents and the acquisition notices etc. The claimants had urged before the Arbitral Tribunal that they had approached Kiri between 2010-13 for execution of the Sale Deed which was being deferred repeatedly, on the ground that the Sale Deeds in that area were not being registered by the Sub-Registrar. The claimants' testimony, of its witness (Sh. Tejinder Setia) in cross examination, was that he did not deposit the balance amount as per the Agreement to Sell as an NOC was not forthcoming despite having approached Mr. Kiri many times for accepting the money. Kiri's testimony was that he did not receive any notice in writing from the claimant ever for terminating or cancelling the Agreement to Sale.
5. When Kiri's representative, Mr. Rajinder Kiri was confronted in cross examination, he admitted that there was no disclosure about the acquisition proceedings, in the agreement and feigned non-recollection about whether disclosure of such proceedings was made to the claimants. In the Award, the Arbitral Tribunal observed that the seller had induced the claimants to enter into the contract on false pretenses and had concealed the acquisition proceedings. Meanwhile, Kiri had counter claimed against the claimant in the arbitration proceeding. This was however, repelled successfully. The tribunal held that Kiri had also not disclosed the true facts, because in respect to the same land, it had executed a registered Assignment Deed in favour of one Best Build Creations Pvt. Ltd. and had further also entered into an agreement to sell with one Leelajay Projects Pvt. Ltd. These facts were not in the knowledge of the claimants when they filed the claim petition. They came to know of these facts, from the website of ........