DATE PARTICULARS PAGE

NUMBER
18.10.201 The appellant invited tenders for development of land including Annexure A/3 @
0 redevelopment of existing Railway Colony at Sarai Rohilla- 128-393
Kishanganj, Delhi.
26.11.201 LOA was issued by RLDA to the successful bidder, i.e., the Annexure A/4 @
0 Respondent No. 1 thereby accepting its bid of Rs. 1651, 51, 394-397
00,000/-(Rupees One Thousand Six Hundred Fifty One Crores
and Fifty-One Lakhs only).
29.03.201 The Respondent paid the part payment amounting to Rs.282, Annexure
1
77, 18,000/- (Rupees Two Hundred Eighty-Two Crores A/5(COLLY) @
Seventy-Seven Lakhs Eighteen Thousand) to RLDA towards 1st 398-402
installment. The complete payment of the 1st installment was
finally received on 19.12.2012.
19.12.201 The Respondent paid to RLDA an amount of Rs.
2
330,30,20,000/- (Rupees Three Hundred Thirty Crores Thirty
Lakhs Twenty Thousand only)
01.08.201 Committee constituted by NGT in its guidelines for Annx.-A/7, 1965
4 transportation of coal in state of Meghalaya. The committee @ 1966, 1975
recognized that all exit points from the state already have
departmental check-points and wherever feasible the existing
infrastructure to be used.
07.10.201 Hon’ble Tribunal proceeds to order establishment of 10 check- Annx.-A/8, 1979
4 posts. @ 1984
02.12.201 Hon’ble Tribunal again permitted the state government to Annx.-A/9, 1990
4 install new weighbridges at several points in the state. @ 1990, 1991,
1992
23.12.201 Hon’ble tribunal permitted private owned weigh bridges to Annx.-A/10,
4 issue certificates under MV Act to coal laden trucks, and 1995 @ 1995,
installation of more weigh-bridges closer to the mines. 1996
25.03.201 Tribunal directed the State Government to operationalize. 12 Annx.-A11,
5 weigh-bridges within 4 weeks. 1998 @ 2010,
 2011
14.05.201 State government obtained extension of installation of Annx.-A/12,
5 weighbridges. 2019 @ 2023
31.07.201 State government again obtained extension of installation of Annx.-A/13,
5 weighbridges. 2025 @ 2027,
2028
06.11.201 The Supreme Court, while considering SLP- 17901-17902/2012 Annx.-A/14,
5 directed that only the existing weighbridges shall be allowed to 2032 @ 2033
continue till the creation of the ‘integrated check-gates’
01.03.201 Secretary of the applicant association sent a representation to Annx.- A/15,
6 the Chief Secretary of the state and informed of the 2034 @ 2034,
inconvenience being caused and that the same was not allowed 2035
in view of orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. <the order of
the SC has been violated as the Transport Department post the
order invited tenders for individual weighbridges at various
locations across Meghalaya>
03.03.201 Press release informing of the imposition of section 144 CRPC Annx.-A/16,
7 in Ri-Bhoi district because of traffic jams at the weighbridges. 2036.
10.03.201 The Hon’ble tribunal directs the State Government to ensure Annx.-A/17,
7 that no private weighbridges to operate which are not run 2037 @ 2038
directly by it or under its control or without it’s supervision.
20.09.201 Petitioner association makes known to the Transport department Annx. –A/18,
7 of the glaring violations of MV act and underweight certificates 2039
issued by the weighbridges giving a red carpet welcome to the
overloaded trucks causing harm to the roads.
29.07.201 News paper reports revealing the extortion racket thriving near Annx.-A/19, @
6 Jorabat, and the weighbridges acting as a place for extortion. 2040, Colly at
2041
26.10.201 Reports of resistance from local administrative bodies, against Annx.-A/20,
6 installation of weighbridges within the town limits, causing 2042
long jams and pollution.
19.04.201 Applicant association informed the Chief Minister of the Annx. –A/21,
8 rampant corruption in the installation and operation of the 2043 @ 2043,
weighbridges. 2044
PROPOSITIONS:

1) THE ARBITRAL AWARD IS EX-FACIE CONTRARY TO THE TERMS OF THE

AGREEMENT
 The Tribunal returned patently erroneous findings in favour of the
Respondent/Developer, holding the termination to be with effect from 15.06.2015
because of failure to attain financial close.
 The Tribunal passed the award which was clearly in conflict with:
A) The public policy of India [Section 34(2)(b)(ii)]
B) [Section 34(2)(a)(v)]
2) GROUNDS FOR APPEAL UNDER SECTION 37 (1) (C)

 The Tribunal went beyond the agreement terms in passing the impugned award
which was contrary to Section 34 (2) (a) (v) and Section 34 (2) (b) (ii).
 However, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in DDA v. RS Sharma (2008) 13 SCC 80
has held that “The Arbitrator cannot go beyond the terms of the agreement in as
much as the same adversely affects the rights of the contracting parties and
therefore such awards cannot be sustained under Section 34 of the Act’.
 The Hon’ble Apex Court in ONGC Ltd. v. Western Geco International Ltd (2014)
9 SCC 263 has given a wide interpretation to the term ‘public policy’.
 The Arbitral Award is not only contrary to the contract but is also in violation of
the part I of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and suffers from
perversity, patent illegality and is in conflict with public policy.
 The principle of judicial restraint does not come in the way of the Court in terms
of Section 34 of the Act in cases where the agreement terms have been ignored in
passing awards.
 The restrictive reading of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
citing the narrow scope of the section as the ground for non-interference with the
arbitral award is an error on the part of the Learned Single Judge.
 The fact that the challenge under Section 34 was not to the interpretation of the
agreement terms, but rather, to the ignorance of the express terms was not
considered by the Learned Single Judge.
 The Ld. Single Judge failed to consider that the Hon’ble Tribunal ignored the
plain meaning of the provisions of the agreement and substituted its own thoughts
beyond four corners of the agreement while arriving at the conclusion.
 The Principles of Natural Justice have been violated in this case as the arbitral
award has been passed without taking into consideration specific contentions of
the appellant as well as the pleadings and proof on record.
 LVI
 There could not have been deemed termination of the agreement in as much as the
agreement was consistently extended by way of ‘post-facto extensions’.
 If the agreement provisions were applied strictly then the agreement would stand
‘deemed terminated’ on the 240th day, being the last day for ‘execution and
procured execution of the substitution and escrow agreement.’
 Despite the above fact, the Hon’ble Tribunal considered the fact that ‘Escrow and
Substitution Agreement was part of requirement to attain Financial Close’,
without any evidence or pleading produced by the developer in that regard.
 The aspect of deemed termination was raised as a red-herring by the developer so
as to escape liability of forfeiture of entire amount of lease premium under Article
29.3.2.
 XXIII
 The Learned Single Judge did not take into consideration that the termination of
DA by the appellant on the ground of Developer event of Default was not
retrospective in nature but rather, it was a termination from the date of breach.
 The Arbitrators have not acted impartially and have played fraud upon the
Appellant by letting the Respondent reap premium for its own wrong.
 The Arbitral Award is unfair and the reasons given for the award are perfunctory
in nature because neither did the Respondent achieve Financial Close, nor did he
fulfill the obligation of payment to the Appellant.
 The Respondent failed to make payment of 4th installment as on 22.02.2015 which
constituted a payment default and since the same has not been rectified within the
‘cure period’, the same would constitute an ‘Event of Default’ with effect from
23.02.2015 itself.
 The material facts were not considered by the Arbitral Tribunal which is evident
from the absence of discussion of the letter dated 22.02.2015.
 The Hon’ble AT ignored the fact that the Respondent had willfully refused to
exhaust the cure period completely and therefore the right to terminate the
agreement would arise immediately irrespective of the fact that the cure period
had not been exhausted.
 The principle relating to payment of damages and evidence placed on record
justifying claim of damages by RLDA has also not been taken into consideration
by the Hon’ble Arbitral Tribunal.
