Karnataka High Court
Sri.G.M.Virupakshappa vs Sri.M.Veerabhadrappa on 8 July, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
COMMERCIAL APPEAL NO.68 OF 2021
C/W.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1654 OF 2021 (AA)
IN COMAP NO.68 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. MUDDEGOWDARA VEERABHADRAPPA
SINCE DECEASED, BY HIS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVE
SHRI. M.V. RAVI
2. SHRI. M.V. RAVI
S/O SHRI. MUDDEGOWDARA
VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED 55 YEARS
3. SMT. B.N. ASHA
W/O SHRI. M.V. RAVI
AGED 48 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.851/6
'BAKKESWARA', 7TH CROSS
TARALABALU LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE-577 005
...APPELLANTS
(By SRI. ARUN B.M., ADVOCATE)
-
2
AND:
1. SHRI. G.M. VIRUPAKSHAPPA
S/O SHRI. MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.1660/35
11TH CROSS, TARALABALU BADAVANE
DAVANAGERE-577 005
2. SMT. C. NIRMALA
W/O SHRI. G.M. VIRUPAKSHAPPA
AGED 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT No.1660/35
11TH CROSS, TARALABALU BADAVANE
DAVANAGERE-577 005
3. SHRI. C.N. CHANNABASAPPA
S/O SHRI NINGAPPA
SINCE DECEASED, BY HIS LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES
3(a). SHRI. C. JAGADISH
S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA
AGED 52 YEARS
3(b). SHRI. C. MAHADEVAPPA
S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA
AGED 48 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/O. CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
AVAREGERE POST
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 005
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. SHIVASHANKAR S.K., ADVOCATE FOR R3(a) & (b))
THIS COMMERCIAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
37(1)(c) OF THE ARBITATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996
READ WITH SECTION 10(2) OF THE COMMERCIAL COURT ACT,
2015, PRAYING TO (a) SET ASIDE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED
05.01.2021 PASSED IN ARBITRATION SUIT No.4/2018 BY THE
-
3
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT DAVANAGERE,
INSOFAR AS SETTING ASIDE PARA No.3 OF THE AWARD DATED
14.09.2018 IN A.C.No.132/2017 AND MODIFYING THE SAME AS
HEREUNDER, 'BOTH CLAIMANTS AND RESPONDENTS ARE
DIRECTED TO EQUALLY REPAY THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING
LOAN AMOUNT TO THE DAVANAGERE - HARIHARA URBAN CO-
OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, DAVANGERE AS ON THE DATE OF
FILING OF THE CLAIM PETITION' AND CONSEQUENTIALLY,
RESTORE PARA No.3 OF THE AWARD DATED 14.09.2018 IN
A.C.No.132/2017 AND ETC.
IN MFA NO. 1654 OF 2021:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G.M. VIRUPAKSHAPPA
SRI. MAHESHWARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
2. SMT. C. NIRMALA
W/O G.M. VIRUPAKSHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
SL. No.1 & 2 ARE R/O. No.1660/35
11TH CROSS, TARALABALU
BADAVANE / LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE-577 001
3. SRI. C.N. CHANNABASAPPA
S/O NINGAPPA
SINCE DEAD, RY LR'S
3(a). SHRI. C. JAGADISH
S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
3(b). SHRI. C. MAHADEVAPPA
S/O LATE CHANNABASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
BOTH ARE AGRICULTURISTS
R/O. CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE
-
4
AVAREGERE POST
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 001
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE FOR A1 & A2;)
SRI. SHIVASHANKAR S.K., ADVOCATE FOR A3(a) & (b))
AND:
1 . SRI. M. VEERABHADRAPPA
S/O M. MUDEGOWDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS
SINCE DEAD, R2 & R3 ARE
LEGAL HEIRS V.C.O.
DATED 15.12.2023
2 . SRI. M.V. RAVI
S/O SHRI. MUDDEGOWDARA
VEERABHADRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
3 . SMT. B.N. ASHA
W/O SRI. M.V. RAVI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O. 'BAKKESHWARA'
No.852/6, 9TH CROSS
TARALABALU BADAVANE/LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE-577 005
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUN B.M., ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3;
R1 IS DEAD, R2 & R3 ARE THE LEGAL HEIRS OF
DECEASED R1, V.C.O. DATED 15.12.2023 IN COMAP
NO.68/2021)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 37(1)(c) OF THE
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.01.2021 PASSED IN
AS.No.4/2018 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE PETITION FILED
UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION
ACT, 1996.
-
5
THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 09.06.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
The Commercial Appeal as well as the Miscellaneous
First Appeal arise out of the Order dated 05.01.2021 passed
in A.S.No.4/2018, by the Principal District and Sessions
Judge at Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial
Court').
2. Heard Shri. Arun B.M, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants in COMAP No.68/2021 and respondents
No.2 and 3 in MFA No.1654/2021. Shri. Unnikrishnan M,
learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 in
COMAP No.68/2021 and appellants No.1 and 2 in MFA
No.1654/2021 and Shri. Shivashankar S.K, learned counsel
appearing for respondents No.3(a) and (b) in COMAP
No.68/2021 and appellants No.3(a) and (b) in MFA
No.1654/2021.
-
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are
referred to in this judgment as per their ranking before the
Arbitral Tribunal unless otherwise specified.
4. It is submitted that the parties were partners of
the firm by name M/s. Guru Marulasiddeshwara Swamy
Associates constituted on 22.05.2007. The firm had
purchased property having an extent of 4 acres and 20
guntas of land in Sy.No.87/2 and bearing Chalti No.116/1, 2
and 3 of Davangere Mahanagara Palike (DMP) situated in
Shekarappa Nagar, Davangere in CTS.No.2620 under a Sale
Deed dated 15.04.2008 (hereinafter referred to as the
'schedule property'). The sale consideration to the extent of
Rs.1 Crore was met through a loan borrowed from the
Davangere Harihara Urban Co-operative Bank ('Bank' for
short).
5. It is further submitted that the claimants dissolved
the firm by issuing a Legal Notice dated 07.10.2015 to the
respondents. In view of the fact that the firm had not
undertaken any other business and since the schedule
-
property purchased by availing loan from the Bank was the
only asset of the firm, the claimants had given two options
to the respondents for settling the dues. The two options are
as follows:-
"a) First Option:
i) Sell the aforesaid property of the firm and
appropriate the proceeds equally on or
before November 2015.
ii) repay the loan to M/s.The Davangere
Harihara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Davangere, in its entirety.
iii) either party shall not have any claim against
each other i.e., my clients will not claim
reimbursement of monies paid to M/s.The
Davangere Harihara Urban Co-operative
Bank Ltd., Davangere.
you will not claim reimbursement of monies
paid to Shri. Dayananda and Shri.
Panchanna.
you will also return all the blank cheques.
b) Second Option:
i) Divide the aforesaid property of the firm into
two equal shares and allot to both the
parties as per the portions demarcated
herein (sketch annexed hereto).
ii) repay the loan to M/s.The Davangere
Harihara Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Davangere, in its entirety.
iii) either party shall not have any claim against
each other i.e., my clients will not claim
reimbursement of monies paid to M/s.The
Davangere Harihara Urban Co-operative
Bank Ltd., Davangere.
-
you will also not claim reimbursement of
monies paid to Shri Dayananda and Shri.
Panchanna.
you will also return all the blank cheques."
The respondents rejected the aforesaid options through a
Reply Notice dated 18.03.2016, subsequent to which the
claimants, by invoking the Arbitration Clause approached the
Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator. On appointment
of a sole arbitrator, the claimants filed their Claim Petition in
AC No. 132/2017.
6. Before the learned Arbitrator, it was asserted by
the respondents that the claim was misconceived, as the
actual consideration paid for purchase of the schedule
property was Rs.1,71,00,000/- not Rs.1 Crore as claimed by
the claimants, asserting that payments made to the co-
owners, who were partners of the selling firm, had not been
accounted for by the claimants. The respondents further
contended that additional amounts had been borrowed from
private individuals including Sri Dayananda and Sri
Panchanna, on behalf of the firm to pay the co-owners, and
-
that this excess amount was to be equally borne by both
parties.
7. On consideration of the parties' contentions and
the material on record, a detailed Award dated 14.09.2018
was passed by the Sole Arbitrator, wherein it was found that
the registered Sale Deed recorded the consideration paid as
Rs.1 Crore, and no evidence was produced to establish that
Rs.71,00,000/- had been borrowed from private persons as
alleged by the respondents. It was therefore held that the
schedule property had been purchased for Rs.1 Crore and
both parties were required to repay their respective share of
the liability to the Bank. The Arbitrator directed that the
schedule property be divided by metes and bounds as
delineated in the rough sketch accompanying Ex.P3-Legal
Notice and demarcated by the letters A-A1, B-B1 & E-C, C1-
F, and required the parties to clear the loan amount with
proportionate interest, obtain a 'No Due Certificate' from the
Bank, and register the Partition Deed by seeking execution.
It was further directed that, in the event of default by either
party in paying their balance sum, the other party would be
-
entitled to clear the entire balance and execute the award.
Thereafter, it is submitted that the claimants were
compelled to clear the entire outstanding amount of
Rs.50,56,000/- to the Bank on 24.04.2019, which included
the respondents' share of approximately Rs.50 Lakhs, and
execution was sought by the claimants in Execution Petition
No.91/2019, which remains pending consideration.
8. The respondents challenged the Award under
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
('Arbitration Act' for short) in A.S.No.4/2018. In the said
Suit, the respondents (plaintiffs) filed I.As.No.III and IV
under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC read with Sections 19 and
27 of the Arbitration Act for production of additional
evidence and vital documents such as correspondence
letters, Bank statements, etc., as the original documents
could not be produced before the Arbitral Tribunal. The trial
Court rejected I.As.No.III and IV and answered the issues
framed under I.As.No.III and IV in the negative, and partly
allowed the suit by modifying Para No.3 of the Arbitral
Award and directed the claimants and the respondents to
-
equally repay the balance outstanding amount to the Bank
as on the date of the Claim Petition. The respondents in the
claim petition have approached this Court challenging the
judgment and decree dated 05.01.2021 in A.S.No.4/2018.
The learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the
award was improper and the same should have been set
aside by the trial Court. The claimants before the Tribunal,
who were the respondents in A.S.No.4/2018 have filed the
appeal contending that the modification made to the arbitral
award was totally unwarranted and that the award, which
did not suffer from any patent illegality should have been
upheld.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the claimants
contends that the respondents did not raise any sustainable
contention in their appeal regarding the Arbitral Award. It is
further contended that the power to modify the award is
available only in the extremely limited circumstances.
Therefore, there was no scope for the trial Court to interfere
in the Award and that the impugned Order is contrary to the
provisions of Section 34(2) of the Arbitration Act
-
10. Further, it is contended that the Court failed to
consider that the respondents had not substantiated their
case by producing balance sheets, etc., or established that
the Arbitral Award was contrary to Section 48 of the
Partnership Act, 1932. Therefore, there was no scope of re-
appreciation of evidence and modifying a portion of the
Arbitral Award.
11. It is also contended that the Court failed to
consider that the claimants had made it clear in their Legal
Notice that the proposals were without prejudice to their
Rights and the proposals were rejected outright by the
respondents in their Reply Notice. Therefore, the
observations made by the trial Court were without
application of mind, perverse and requires to be set aside.
12. It is further contended that the finding of the trial
Court that the Arbitral Award requires modification due to
suppression of facts is ill-founded, insofar as it has not
stated as to what facts are suppressed.
-
13. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants
has placed reliance on the following decisions:
• S V Chandra Pandian And Others v. S.V. Sivalinga
Nadar and Others reported in (1993) 1 SCC 589;
• N Khadervali Saheb(DEAD) BY LRS and Another v.
N. Gudu Sahib(DEAD) and Others reported in (2003)
3 SCC 229;
• Subhash Chandra Sen(DEAD) Through Legal
Representatives and Others v. Nabin Sain(DEAD)
Through Legal Representatives reported in (2018) 6
SCC 443;
• Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft Technologies
Limited reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 986, and
• Navodaya Mass Entertainment v. J.M. Combines
reported in (2015) 5 SCC 698.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondents contended that I.As.No.III and IV, were filed
under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC read with Sections 19 and 27
of the Arbitration Act to adduce additional evidence on the
vital documents. The Trial Court rejected I.As.No.III and IV
on the ground that the CPC provisions are not applicable to
the Arbitration and Conciliation Proceedings.
-
15. It is further contended that the learned Arbitrator
did not consider the important documents and evidence of
the parties, whereas the trial Court considered these aspects
and modified the award in respect of repayment of
remaining loan amount to the Bank. Given such
observations, the trial Court failed to provide entitlement of
the share of each party in view of the admitted repayment
of Rs.30,00,000/- by the claimants. Thus, it is contended
that the equal distribution of share by the learned Arbitrator
and the trial Court is arbitrary and against the records.
Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondents prays
that the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2021 in
A.S.No.4/2018 passed by trial Court and the Arbitral Award
dated 14.09.2018 passed by the learned Arbitrator should
be set aside in the interest of justice and equity.
16. We have considered the contentions advanced.
The issue with regard to the amounts paid by the respective
parties to the vendors of the property was the specific point
on which arbitration was conducted. We notice that the
specific contention before the Arbitral Tribunal was that the
-
only activity conducted by the firm was purchase of the
property which was the subject matter of the loan
transaction. The Arbitral Tribunal had considered the
pleadings of the parties as well as the materials on record.
The specific contention with regard to the claim of the
parties was considered by the Tribunal on the basis of the
evidence and the materials on record. Issues were
specifically raised as to the amount of consideration and the
respective share of the parties. The issues framed by the
Arbitral Tribunal as follows:-
"1. Whether the claimants prove that the entire sale
consideration amount of Rs.1 Crore of the
schedule property was met through a loan amount
of Rs.1 Crore obtained from Davanagere Harihara
Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Davanagere on
12.04.2008 as averred in para 7 of the claim
petition?
2. Whether the respondents prove that the schedule
property was purchased for Rs.1,71,00,000/- as
averred in para 4 of the Objection Statement?
3. Whether the respondents further prove that
claimants have paid only Rs.5,00,500/- instead of
Rs.35,00,500/- being the 50% of Rs.71 Lakhs and
that shortfall of Rs.30 lakhs was adjusted at the
request of the claimants by 1st respondent by
borrowing loan from Dayananda and Panchanna as
averred in para 6 of the objection statement?
4. Whether the respondents prove that they are
entitled for extra 30,000 sq.ft. in the schedule
property towards their share since the claimants
did not repay the loan amount of Rs.30 lakhs with
interest obtained from Dayananda and Panchanna
-
and for not repaying Rs.12,50,000/- alleged to
have been utilised by 1st claimant out of loan
amount of Rs.1 Crore as pleaded in para 7 of the
objection statement?
5. Whether the claimants prove that the firm had
paid Rs.49,48,807/- towards principal amount and
Rs.94,86,067/- towards interest to Davanagere
Harihara Urban Cooperative Bank Limited,
Davanagere as on 24.10.2017 as pleaded in para
7 of the claim petition?
6. Whether the claimants prove that they are entitled
to 18% interest on Rs.4,18,28,400/ being the
market value of their share of 50% from
25.07.2015 as claimed in para 14(d) of the
petition?"
17. It was after considering the entire contentions of
the parties and the documents produced on either side that
the Arbitral Tribunal came to the conclusion that the
respondents had not produced any material to show that the
first respondent (Shri. G.M. Virupakshappa) had borrowed a
sum of Rs.71,00,000/- from private persons for the purpose
of paying the vendors for purchase of the property by the
firm. The fact that the firm had borrowed Rs.1 Crore from
the Bank was admitted by the opposite party in the arbitral
proceedings. There was no evidence on record to link the
payments made by the respondents to the firm. No material
was on record to show the payments were made on behalf
of the firm.
-
18. It was in the above circumstances that the
Arbitral Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the
property was purchased for a sum of Rs.1 Crore since the
respondents could not discharge the burden of proving that
there was any further amount paid as consideration. The
Tribunal had therefore accepted the contention of the
claimants. It was found that the loan had been availed
specifically for purchasing the property and that even if
there were other payments made to the co-owners of the
property before execution of the Sale Deed, they would
stand included in the sale consideration shown in the Sale
Deed. It was further found that there was no material
produced to support the contention that personal loans had
been availed and further amounts had been paid towards
the sale consideration of the property in question. The award
considers the claims of the parties in extenso at paragraph
No.19. Each document relied on by the claimants as well as
the opposite party have been specifically taken note of and
adverted to by the Arbitral Tribunal.
-
19. In the above circumstances and in view of the
limited scope of interference in an Arbitral Award under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, we are of the opinion that
the Court was justified in not setting aside the Arbitral
Award.
20. It is pertinent to note that the dispute which was
referred to arbitration was with regard to the dissolution of
the firm and the settlement of accounts between the
partners. The firm was admittedly one which could be
dissolved at will and the claimants had invoked the right of
dissolution and had issued notice dated 07.10.2015
exercising such right as per Ex.P3-Legal Notice. A rough
sketch demarcating two equal portions of the property was
also annexed to the notice. After considering all the
materials on record, the Arbitral Tribunal directed the
apportionment of the property between the parties as
provided in the sketch. It is contended that the sketch
provided by the claimants should not have been accepted as
such. Though the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants (respondents before the Tribunal) attempted to
-
argue that such demarcation or division by metes and
bounds should not have been undertaken by the arbitrator,
we are of the opinion that since admittedly the firm stood
dissolved by will, the arbitrator was well within his powers in
ordering a division of the property, which is the sole asset of
the firm by metes and bounds. We are supported in this
view by the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of
Subhash Chandra Sen(DEAD) Through Legal
Representatives and Others v. Nabin Sain(DEAD)
Through Legal Representatives reported in (2018) 6
SCC 443.
21. Further, the contention that the claimants should
have been permitted to produce material before the trial
Court in support of their contentions before the arbitrator
also cannot be accepted since there is nothing on record to
show that the appellants were prevented by any justifiable
reason from producing the material before the Arbitral
Tribunal.
-
22. In paragraph No.23 of the award, the Arbitral
Tribunal has clearly found that a sum of Rs.49,48,807/- was
paid by the claimants towards the principal and
Rs.94,86,067/- was paid towards the interest towards their
share of the liability of the amount borrowed from the Bank.
The Arbitral Tribunal found that the said statement was
neither controverted by the respondents' counsel nor denied
in the evidence of RW.1. Exs.P8 and P9 were also produced
to prove the correctness of the said contention. It is in the
said circumstances that the Arbitral Tribunal had accepted
the claim and held that the claimants have to remit the
shortfall in their share of liability of Rs.50,00,000/- with
proportionate interest after adjusting the payment made as
per Exs.P8 and P9. The opposite parties were required to
repay their share of the debt along with the proportionate
interest and get the property discharged by obtaining 'No
Due Certificate' from the Bank.
23. Though the appellants (in MFA No.1654/2021)
had set up a case that they had paid the amounts to the
owners of the property directly and that the amount taken
-
as loan from the Bank was to have been repaid by the
claimants, they could not produce any evidence before the
Arbitral Tribunal in support of such contentions. We notice
that even the material produced by the appellants (in MFA
No.1654/2021) before the Arbitral Tribunal to contend that
there were payments made to the co-owners of the property
cannot be accepted in view of the fact that some of such
payments are seemed to have been made admittedly by the
claimants and not by the opposite party exclusively. Further,
there is no material to show that the payments were made
on behalf of the firm. In the said circumstances, the Arbitral
Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient
material on record to show that there was any further sale
consideration or agreement with regard to payment of the
entire loan taken from the Bank by the claimants. However,
in the application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act,
the Court accepted the contention of the appellants that the
amounts paid to the owners was part of the sale
consideration for the property and that there were
agreements inter se between the claimants and the
-
respondents with regard to payment of the compensation.
The Court has re-appreciated the entire evidence on record
acting as an appellate Court rather than as a Court under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act which has the limited
powers to consider whether the arbitration award is liable to
be interfered with in terms of the said Section. Having re-
appreciated the evidence, the Court comes to a different
conclusion and attempted a modification of the award. The
Court also relied on the statement in the notice issued by
the claimants to the respondents to come to the conclusion
that the contentions raised by the respondents before the
arbitral Tribunal were sustainable.
24. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the
case of Gayatri Balasamy v. ISG Novasoft
Technologies Limited reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC
986, has specifically considered the extent of the power of
the appropriate Court under the Arbitration Act to modify
the award. It was found that notwithstanding Section 33, a
Court reviewing an award under Section 34 possesses the
authority to rectify computational, clerical or typographical
-
errors or other manifest errors provided such modifications
do not necessitate a merits based evaluation. The power of
modification was traced to the inherent powers of the Court.
However, it was further held that such power is not to be
confused with appellate jurisdiction of a higher Court or the
power to review the judgment of the trial Court. If the
modification is debatable or a doubt arises regarding its
appropriateness, that is, if the error is not apparent on the
face of the record, the Court will be left unable to proceed.
25. From the materials on record, it appears that at-
least some of the payments allegedly made to Shri.
Dayananda and Shri. Panchanna were also made by the
claimants before the Arbitral Tribunal. Since Section 34
Court has upheld the finding of the Arbitral Tribunal that the
recitals with regard to consideration as provided in the
registered Sale Deed have to prevail over the other material
produced to show payments made before such deeds were
registered, we are of the opinion that it was not open to the
Court to then hold that there were further payments made.
In any event, there was no material available before the
-
Section 34 Court to attempt a modification of the award,
which is possible only in specific circumstances as has been
held by the Apex Court.
26. In the above view of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the said exercise undertaken by the Section 34
Court was totally unjustified.
27. In the result:-
(i) Commercial Appeal No.68/2021 filed by the
claimants is allowed.
(ii) MFA No.1654/2021 filed by the
respondents is dismissed.
(iii) The arbitral award shall stand upheld and
can be executed in accordance with law,
without undue delay.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
All pending applications, if any, in both the appeals
shall stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
cp*
