[ad_1]
A. THE CHALLENGE
1. These Appeals are filed by the Appellants challenging the
order dated 11 October 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court allowing Arbitration Petition Nos.114 of 2006 and 119 of
2006 and setting aside the Award dated 21 September 2005 passed
k 4/29 16 arapp 62.07 n 17 63.07 db os.doc
by the learned sole Arbitrator. By the Award, claim filed by the
Appellants for specific performance of the Memorandum of
Understanding was allowed by the Arbitral Tribunal.
B. FACTS
2. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) dated 20 July 1994
was executed between the original Respondents and the Appellants
under which the original Respondents Mr. Rajendra Acharya and
Mr. Nandkishor Acharya agreed to sale their respective undivided
shares, right, title and interest in the property situated at Paper Mill
Lane, bearing City Survey Nos.1596 and 1597 at Girgaon Division,
admeasuring 370 square meters (said property). The Memorandum
of Understanding contemplated utilization of the entire FSI in
respect of the said property as permitted by the local authorities.
The consideration agreed for the transaction was Rs.18,00,000/-
payable to the Respondents in equal proportion. On 20 July 1994,
the General Power of Attorney was executed by the original
Respondents authorizing the Appellants to do various acts, deeds
and things for development of the said property and to negotiate
with tenants and arrive at arrangements. Between 1994 to 1996
Appellants paid amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to the original
Respondents. The Appellants apparently started negotiations with
the tenants in January 1996 and were apparently successful in
securing consent of two tenants. However, on 4 November 1996
original Respondent No.1 terminated the Memorandum of
Understanding on the ground that the second installment of
k 5/29 16 arapp 62.07 n 17 63.07 db os.doc
Rs.7,50,000/- was not paid, in addition to raising issues of few other
breaches allegedly committed by the Appellants. The Appellants
disputed the contents of the said notice vide reply dated 2
December 1996. Respondents issued rejoinder dated 21 January
[ad_2]
Source link