EMDEN’S BUILDING CONTRACTS AND PRACTICE

1
The reason for this lawsuit is the disagreement
between "Jagjeet Singh Lyllpuri" and "Unitop
Apartments and Builders Ltd"1. Following a
dispute, the respondent requested arbitration
one former Supreme Court justice was appointed as
the only arbiter. The appellants received an
award in their favour. Unhappy with the outcome,
the respondent filed a case with the Court of
Additional District Judge in Ludhiana in
accordance with section 34 of the 1996
Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The award was
sustained in court.

• Before the High Court, the Respondent filed an
  appeal in accordance with section 37 of the Act.
  The High Court granted the respondent's request
  and remanded the case to the learned arbitrator
  for further review.EMDENS BUILDING CONTRACTS AND
  PRACTICE Consequently, the appellants filed an
  appeal with the Supreme

2
A joint venture between the appellants and the
respondents was established in accordance with a
contract between the parties in order to develop
a residential and commercial complex on the
appellant's land. In three years, the project was
intended to be completed. The project was started
in August 1997 by the respondent, and it was
finished on January 31, 1999. The respondent then
gave up on the project. Because the construction
was not complete, the appellants officially
cancelled the contract and gave notice of their
intent to do so.

3
A cancellation agreement was reached after some
negotiation between the parties and was
incorporated into the agreement.
The respondents submitted an application under
Section 9 of the Act to stop the appellants from
undermining or destroying the construction that
they had established and from invoking the
arbitration provision.
In accordance with section 11, the respondent
submitted a request for the appointment of an
arbitrator. A retired Supreme Court justice
appointed by the court served as the sole expert
arbitrator.
The parties appeared before the arbitrator and
set forth their respective claims and
counterclaims. After hearing from both sides, the
arbitrator created and announced the award.

• The respondent who was unhappy with the ruling
  submitted a petition under section 34. The
  petition submitted by the respondent was
  dismissed by the learned Additional District
  Judge, who also sustained and confirmed the
  award.
• The learned arbitrator did not provide the
  parties with an adequate opportunity to offer
  evidence by cross-examining the witness,
  according to the High Court, which overturned the
  Additional District Judge's judgement. It was
  decided to send the case back to the arbitrator
  for more thought. Best value For Legal
  Expenditure in The Field of Arbitration The High
  Court ruling was challenged by the appellant in a
  Special Leave petition.

4
The respondent brought up these points during the
award's passage, and as a result, they were
dismissed. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge
of the High Court's decision to return the case
to the experienced arbitrator was unwarranted.

The second point was handled by the arbitrator,
who, according to the Supreme Court, dismissed
the respondent's claim regarding the cost
incurred for the level of construction done. The
arbitrator addressed each matter in turn and
indicated his conclusions regarding the
statements made, according to a perusal of the
verdict.

• In an order dated November 28, 2009, the
  arbitrator noted that the parties did not attempt
  to cross-examine any of the witnesses and that
  one present witness was dismissed without being
  questioned. The parties and their counsel were
  present when this was done. No grievance,
  application, or challenge was submitted to the
  learned arbitrator before the award was rendered
  asking for the order to be recalled so that
  parties might present evidence or face
  cross-examination.
• The respondent approved of the aforementioned
  procedure, hence the respondent could not
  disapprove or approve of it, according to the
  Supreme Court. Accepting the aforementioned
  approach prohibited the respondent from making
  these arguments, and it was only after the