Summary: The Delhi High Court rejected an appeal by Krishan Kumar and others against Shakuntla Agency Pvt. Ltd., supporting the decision made by an arbitrator. The court found no reason to change the previous decisions, highlighting the importance of taking part in the process and the limited chances to change arbitration decisions.
Krishan Kumar and others appealed against M/S Shakuntla Agency Pvt Ltd, challenging orders dated July 25, 2024, and January 31, 2025. The disagreement was about a piece of land in Delhi, which was originally owned by the appellants' father, Zile Singh, and sold to Shakuntla Agency.
The piece of land was part of a government project for airport development, with compensation provided as another plot in Rangpuri, Delhi. An agreement to sell the new plot to Shakuntla Agency was made for ₹2.25 crore, but after Zile Singh's death, the appellants did not complete the sale.
Shakuntla Agency started an arbitration process when the appellants did not follow through with the agreement. The arbitrator decided in favor of Shakuntla Agency, ordering the appellants to complete the sale. The appellants challenged this decision in court, which was dismissed.
The appellants claimed that a rule in an allotment letter stopped the sale. However, this document was not part of the original arbitration records. The court stressed that new evidence at this stage is only allowed in rare cases.
"The rules and procedures of arbitration are controlled only by the special law created for that purpose."
The court noted that the appellants initially took part in the arbitration but later chose not to, failing to present a defense or evidence. This choice led to the acceptance of the facts as presented by Shakuntla Agency.
"A party that enters the process, becomes aware of the proceedings, and then chooses not to participate, cannot be allowed to change the outcome."
The court upheld the previous decisions, emphasizing that the appellants could not bring in new evidence after the decision without a very good reason. The appeal was dismissed, reinforcing the finality of arbitration decisions.
"To cancel a decision based on a document that was clearly known to the challenging party, but not shown to the Arbitral Tribunal, would go against public policy."
This judgment highlights the importance of fully participating in arbitration proceedings and the limited chances for courts to change arbitration decisions.
