JUDGMENT R.D. DHANUKA, J. 1. By this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 25th September 2014 granting only part of the relief in favour of the petitioner (original claimants). The petitioner has impugned remaining part of the award by which the learned arbitrator has rejected the claim for specific performance of the agreement and also refused to grant prayer for damages. Some of the relevant facts for deciding this petition are as under: 2. On 20th June 2002, the respondent entered into a Development Agreement with the petitioner for re-development of its building on the terms and conditions recorded therein. 3. On 25th February 2006, the petitioner inducted Mr.Parvez S. Lakdawala, Mr.Abdul Aziz Abdul Gafoor and Mr. Shahid Abdul Aziz as partners of the petitioner. On 3rd March 2006, the petitioner gave its proposal for demolition of the building and reconstruction of a new building on the alternative basis. It is the case of the petitioner that on 11th March 2006, the proposal given by the petitioner on 3rd March 2006 was considered by the respondent-society in the Special General Body Meeting held on 11th March 2006. On 23rd April 2006, the respondent informed the petitioner about the decision taken by the respondent-society in the meeting held on 11th March 2006 to the effect that the petitioner should acquire and purchase the plot of lands bearing CTS No.19 and Survey No.287 in front of the society from MHADA in the name of the society and pay costs etc. 4. On 29th April 2006, the society informed the petitioner that the agreement for development was between the respondent -society and M/s. Om Shiv Construction Co., the partnership concern of Mr.Chandrakant A. Mishra and Mr.Suresh N.Shetty and it has been decided that the society would deal with those two persons only and would not deal with any other persons in any manner and they could not enter into any correspondence with anybody else. 5. Sometime in the year 2005, the society filed a Writ Petition bearing No.1224 of 2005 against MHADA in respect of sale of the plot. By an order dated 11th July 2006, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court. 5. Sometime in the year 2005, the society filed a Writ Petition bearing No.1224 of 2005 against MHADA in respect of sale of the plot. By an order dated 11th July 2006, the said writ petition was disposed of by this Court. It was ordered that a fresh advertisement would be issued by MHADA for sale of the said plot and in which event, the respondent-society if they so desired could apply. The said plot was subsequently declared by MHADA as Recreation Ground. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had taken initiative to file and pursue the said writ petition. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that after completing the requirements specified in IOD, the petitioner procured Commencement Certificate and also procured Tit Bit Plot of 173.06 sq.mtrs. from MHADA in the name of the respondent at the cost of Rs.19,29,241/-. 7. By letter dated 8th August 2006, the petitioner informed the respondent reminding about the alleged assurance of the respondent as mentioned in the letter dated 23rd April 2006. The petitioner informed the respondent-society on 11th August 2006 about reconstitution of partnership firm and stating that the petitioner expected a positive response from the respondent. The society by its letter dated 12th August 2006 denied the contentions raised by the petitioner in its letter dated 8th August 2006 and 11th August 2006. 8. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent started approaching the other developers for development of its building. The petitioner protested such action on the part of the respondent by letter dated 27th February 2007. It is the case of the petitioner that sometime in the month of April 2007, it was proposed by the petitioner and its sister concerns M/s.Grace Khoker & Associates that in the event of the proposed fresh Development Agreement for demolition of the old building of the respondent and construction of a new building being agreed upon between the petitioner and the respondent, the said proposed project would be undertaken by the petitioner by merging the petitioner partnership firm M/s.Om Shiv Construction with its sister concerns M/s.Grace Khoker & Associates for the sake of operational convenience. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent informed the petitioner that the said proposal would be considered in the meeting of the society and accordingly, the petitioner was orally informed that the respondent-society was agreeable to proceed with discussions with the petitioner. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that on 20th November 2007, the petitioner's partner Mr.Shahid Abdul Aziz through his employee forwarded a Draft Development Agreement to the respondent for its approval. In the second week of February 2008, there was a meeting between the petitioner and the respondent. 10. On 25th February 2008, the respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner and its sister concerns reiterating its offer and sought confirmation of the petitioner in writing. It is the case of the petitioner that on 29th February 2008, the petitioner confirmed the terms and conditions for re-development work of the respondent-society's premises. 11. On 14th March 2008, the respondent addressed a letter to the petitioner and its sister concern confirming receipt of the petitioner's original offer dated 26th December 2006 and latest revised offer dated 29th February 2008. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was informed that the society had accepted the offer of the petitioner on the area of the flat, the contribution towards corpus fund and rent for alternate accommodation during the re-development period. 12. Various e-mails were subsequently exchanged between the parties. It is the case of the petitioner that in the meeting of the society held on 24th January 2010, the respondent-society approved the said draft development agreement proposed to be entered into with M/s.Grace Builders (sister concerns of the petitioner). On 4th April 2010, one of the office bearers of the respondent Mr.Ravi Narayan has alleged to have sent final draft of the re-development by e-mail to the petitioner's partner Mr.Shahid Abdul Aziz. The dispute arose between the parties. 13. The petitioner also filed an arbitration petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the respondent-society in this Court. In the said petition filed by the petitioner, this Court, by order dated 21st October 2010, appointed learned arbitrator as the sole arbitrator and disposed of the said Arbitration Petition (L) No.1188 of 2010. 13. The petitioner also filed an arbitration petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the respondent-society in this Court. In the said petition filed by the petitioner, this Court, by order dated 21st October 2010, appointed learned arbitrator as the sole arbitrator and disposed of the said Arbitration Petition (L) No.1188 of 2010. The respondent-society made a statement before this Court that till further orders, the respondent will not enter into any agreement and/or part with possession of and/or create any third party interest of the nature of or which may prejudice the petitioner's rights under the said agreement dated 20th June 2002. This Court accepted the said undertaking. It was, however, clarified that the same shall not in any manner whatsoever prejudice the rights of individual flat owners to sell its flats to third parties. 14. Pursuant to the directions issued by the learned arbitrator, the petitioner herein filed a claim before the learned arbitrator for specific performance of the agreement entered into between the parties and in alternate prayed for damages. The said claim was resisted by the respondent-society. The petitioner led oral evidence before the learned arbitrator. By an award dated 25th September 2014, the learned arbitrator rejected the claim for specific performance as well as damages. The learned arbitrator, however, allowed the expenses incurred by the petitioner for purchase of Tit Bit Plot excluding advocates' fees with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of award till payment. The learned arbitrator directed the petitioner to pay cost of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent and permitted the respondent to deduct the said cost from the amount payable to the petitioner under the said award. The respondent-society did not impugn the said arbitral award by filing a separate petition. The petitioner has impugned the said award in this petition. 15. Mr. The learned arbitrator directed the petitioner to pay cost of Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent and permitted the respondent to deduct the said cost from the amount payable to the petitioner under the said award. The respondent-society did not impugn the said arbitral award by filing a separate petition. The petitioner has impugned the said award in this petition. 15. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though it was not the case of the respondent that in the proposed vertical extension of the building, any erection of columns was proposed to be done in the available marginal open spaces and though there was no restriction or embargo to proceed with vertical expansion of the existing building by loading TDR or by utilising balance FSI in the circulars/directives dated 21st August 2004 issued by the Government of Maharashtra, the learned Arbitrator decided contrary to the terms and conditions of the said circulars/directives dated 21st August 2004. 16. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioner have submitted a proposal to the Municipal Corporation on 3rd October 2003 and IOD was issued on 3rd January 2005 by the Corporation. The said IOD was issued only after taking into account of sanction of necessary concession obtained by the petitioner prior to the date of directives earlier to 21st August 2004 issued by the Government of Maharashtra. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner was also squarely covered by the exemption granted vide clause 2 of the said policy clarification issued by the Government of Maharashtra. It is submitted that though the learned arbitrator has referred to the said policy clarification, he has decided contrary to the said clarification. It is submitted that after obtaining IOD by the petitioner, there was discussion by and between the parties for revised method which went on for a quite sometime. There was thus no delay on the part of the petitioner in commencement of the construction. Learned arbitrator, therefore, ought to have granted the prayer for specific performance of the agreement in favour of the petitioner. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, time was not the essence of contract. The petitioner could have commenced construction only after commencement certificate was issued by the Corporation. No sooner the commencement certificate was issued, negotiations between the parties had started. 18. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, time was not the essence of contract. The petitioner could have commenced construction only after commencement certificate was issued by the Corporation. No sooner the commencement certificate was issued, negotiations between the parties had started. 18. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that though the learned arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.17,42,271/- in favour of the petitioner, the learned arbitrator has not awarded interest for the period prior to the date of award. In support of this submission, the learned counsel invited my attention to paragraph (vii) at page 27 of the impugned award and would submit that the claim of interest for past period was rejected by the learned arbitrator on the ground that there was no notice prior to the filing of the statement, claiming of such interest and the said claim has been made for the first time in the particulars of claim and that also from the date of commencement certificate upto 1st December 2011. It is submitted that the learned arbitrator has also rejected the claim of interest for the past period also on the ground that there was no provision in the contract to claim such interest. Reliance is placed on Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and it is submitted that the learned arbitrator has power to grant interest at such rate as it deems reasonable, on the whole or any part of the money, for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made. It is submitted that there was no prohibition under the contract from awarding any interest by the learned arbitrator. 19. Mr.Shah, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, invited my attention to various findings of fact rendered by the learned arbitrator and also the records and proceedings and documents filed before the learned arbitrator and submits that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference with the arbitral award under Section 34 of the said Arbitration Act. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the proposal submitted by the petitioner was received by the Corporation on 13th October 2003 and the IOD was issued on 3rd January 2005. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the proposal submitted by the petitioner was received by the Corporation on 13th October 2003 and the IOD was issued on 3rd January 2005. The petitioner failed to prove that the petitioner was entitled to the exemption under Item No.2 of the policy clarification issued by the State Government which is considered by the learned arbitrator at page 13 of the impugned award. It is submitted that after interpreting the circular and clarification letter issued by the State Government, the learned arbitrator has rendered a finding that the proposal submitted by the petitioner was under process during the period after the directives dated 21st August 2004 were issued, and if that was so, the directives would apply and no sanction could have been given. However, if any concession was sought and the Commissioner had already approved the concession before the date of the directives, the directives need not apply. It is held by the learned arbitrator that there was no evidence produced by the petitioner seeking any concession and the Commissioner having approved the concession. 20. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that even the commencement certificate granted by the Corporation was valid only for one year commencing from the date of its issuance i.e. valid upto 2nd January 2007. There was no further extension of the commencement certificate beyond August 2007. The learned senior counsel for the respondent invited my attention to the findings rendered by the learned arbitrator to the effect that the petitioner had failed to produce the proof in support of its contention that the petitioner had applied for extension of commencement certificate and was granted extension upto 2nd January 2015. The learned arbitrator noticed that the said alleged acknowledgment relied upon by the petitioner was a simple one line letter, supposed to be from the Municipal Corporation, to inform the witness “that the commencement certificate for the building under reference was valid upto 2nd January 2015.” The said letter was alleged to have been written by the Assistant Engineer whose signature/ initial no one has identified. The learned arbitrator observed that the very appearance of the letter shows that it was not a genuine letter. 21. The learned arbitrator observed that the very appearance of the letter shows that it was not a genuine letter. 21. Learned senior counsel also invited my attention to the findings of facts recorded by the learned arbitrator that all the members of the society were unanimous and agreed that the building should be demolished and a new building should be constructed in its place. Both the parties had agreed to have the existing building demolished and to have a new building constructed thereon. 22. The terms and conditions of the new proposal was not agreed and accordingly the entire IOD and commencement certificate dated 3rd August 2006 would have no meaning to the knowledge of both the parties. The learned arbitrator also has rendered a finding that for more than a year, the entire negotiation was on the new terms and conditions for the new development and both the parties had clearly abandoned the idea of acting on the old agreement. This situation continued for another 3 years with various terms and conditions including draft agreements being exchanged. Learned senior counsel invited my attention to a portion of the award in which the learned arbitrator has also considered the oral evidence led by the witness examined by the petitioner. The witness of the petitioner admitted that the petitioner also agreed to demolish the building and both the parties agreed not to go for vertical extension. The witness also agreed that no agreement could be arrived at between the society and the petitioner for demolition and reconstruction. The learned arbitrator has also rendered a finding that the parties had abandoned the performance of the contract as far back as in the year 2006 itself. 23. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner neither could prove any breach on the part of the respondent nor could prove any damages alleged to have been suffered. It is submitted that the learned arbitrator had considered all the submissions and oral evidence led by the parties and had rightly rejected the claim for specific performance and since such findings rendered by the learned arbitrator are not perverse, this Court cannot interfere with such findings of facts. 24. It is submitted that the learned arbitrator had considered all the submissions and oral evidence led by the parties and had rightly rejected the claim for specific performance and since such findings rendered by the learned arbitrator are not perverse, this Court cannot interfere with such findings of facts. 24. In so far the interpretation of circular issued by the State Government is concerned, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the interpretation of the circulars/directives by the learned arbitrator is a possible interpretation and the same cannot be substituted by another interpretation. 25. In so far as the claim for interest is concerned, it is submitted that under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, there is no mandate that the arbitral tribunal is bound to grant claim for interest but the said provision only gives a discretion to the learned arbitrator to grant interest. It is submitted that though the learned arbitrator has rendered a finding that there was gross delay on the part of the petitioner in compliance with its part of the obligation and the entire project was stand-still, the learned arbitrator has rightly not granted any claim for interest for the past period. The rejection of the claim for interest for the past period is in conformity with the findings of the learned arbitrator. It is submitted that though the reasons recorded by the learned arbitrator in this regard may not be fully satisfactory, the conclusion drawn by the learned arbitrator is in accordance with law and thus no interference with this part of the award also is warranted. REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS :- 26. A perusal of the records indicates that the respondent-society had entered into an agreement on 20th June 2002 with the petitioner for development of its building. Admittedly, till the date of award, no development has been taken place. The petitioner was appointed as developer for the purposes of obtaining TDR and for construction of three additional floors in the building, for extension of the existing tenements by 100 sq.ft. built-up area each, for installation of a lift in the building and for beautification of the society premises. The plan was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation on or about 13th October 2003. The Corporation issued IOD on 3rd January 2005 and issued commencement certificate on 3rd August 2006. built-up area each, for installation of a lift in the building and for beautification of the society premises. The plan was sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation on or about 13th October 2003. The Corporation issued IOD on 3rd January 2005 and issued commencement certificate on 3rd August 2006. The said commencement certificate has not been extended since then and has already expired long back. The learned arbitrator has rendered a finding that the acknowledgment relied upon by the petitioner in support of its submission that the petitioner had submitted an application for extension of commencement certificate and the same was granted till 2nd January 2015 was not a genuine one. The petitioner did not prove by leading appropriate evidence by examining any officer of the Municipal Corporation or to prove that commencement certificate was extended. Though the commencement certificate expired long back, the petitioner did not take any steps for renewal. The construction was never commenced by the petitioner. 27. Though the parties started re-negotiation in respect of the new proposal, the fact remains that the terms and conditions of the new proposal could not be agreed upon. The learned arbitrator has considered the oral evidence of the witness examined by the petitioner deposing that the petitioner had also agreed to demolish the building. Both the parties had agreed not to go for vertical extension of the building but to demolish the building. The said witness also agreed that no agreement could be arrived at between the society and the petitioner for demolition and reconstruction. The learned arbitrator accordingly held that since both the parties had agreed that they had dropped the idea of performing a particular agreement, it should necessarily mean that the contract has been rescinded. The learned arbitrator also recorded a finding that the parties had abandoned the performance of the contract as far back as in the year 2006 itself. 28. A perusal of the award indicates that the learned arbitrator has rendered a finding that the petitioner had submitted its plans to the Municipal Corporation after one year and four months on 13th October 2003. They obtained IOD on 3rd January 2005 i.e. nearly after another fifteen months and got commencement certificate on 3rd August 2006 i.e. after another twenty months. There was no evidence to explain all these delays at each stage. They obtained IOD on 3rd January 2005 i.e. nearly after another fifteen months and got commencement certificate on 3rd August 2006 i.e. after another twenty months. There was no evidence to explain all these delays at each stage. There was no evidence whether any TDR was purchased as envisaged under Clause 4(1) of the agreement. The petitioner also did not produce any evidence to show that the petitioner was getting any materials for commencement of the work. 29. In so far as the exemption as mentioned in circular/directives issued by the State Government and the clarification dated 3rd November 2004 is concerned, a perusal of the impugned award clearly indicates that the petitioner had not even produced sanction plan before the learned arbitrator. The learned arbitrator held that in this case, the proposal was received on 13th October 2003 and the IOD was issued on 3rd January 2005 and thus it could be said that the proposal was under process during the period after the directives dated 21st August 2004 and if that was so, the directives would apply and no sanction could have been given. The petitioner failed to produce any evidence of seeking any concession and the Commissioner having approved the concession. The learned arbitrator, while rejecting the prayer for specific performance, also considered the fact that the commencement certificate was not extended beyond October 2007 and the alleged acknowledgment produced by the petitioner was not a genuine one. The learned arbitrator, after considering all the facts and evidence on record, has rendered a finding that both the parties had clearly abandoned the idea of acting on the old agreement. In so far as the new proposal is concerned, the parties admittedly did not enter into any new agreement. In the present case, the parties knew that it was, in any event, impossible to perform the contract, and both had no choice, but to put an end to the same. 30. I am thus not inclined to accept the submission of Mr.Andhyarujina, learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned arbitrator had decided contrary to the circular/directives issued by the State Government. 30. I am thus not inclined to accept the submission of Mr.Andhyarujina, learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned arbitrator had decided contrary to the circular/directives issued by the State Government. In my view, the learned arbitrator has interpreted the terms of the circular/ directives issued by the State of Maharashtra which interpretation, in my view, is a possible interpretation and thus the said interpretation cannot be substituted by another interpretation under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Even otherwise, the learned arbitrator has rendered a finding of fact that the petitioner has failed to prove that the petitioner had applied for any such exemption or that the same has been granted by the Municipal Corporation. The learned arbitrator has also rendered a finding that the petitioner did not take any steps to commence any construction of the building though the agreement was entered into as far back as in the year 2006. 31. In my view, none of the findings rendered by the learned arbitrator are perverse and thus cannot be interfered with under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This Court cannot reappreciate the findings of facts unless the same are perverse. In my view, the relief for specific performance is a discretionary relief. In the facts and circumstances of such case, the learned arbitrator is fully justified in rejecting the claim for specific performance of the agreement. In my view, the finding of the learned arbitrator that both the parties had abandoned the agreement is correct. 32. In so far as the claim for damages is concerned, the learned arbitrator has considered the oral evidence led by the witness examined by the petitioner and has rightly rendered a finding that the petitioner had failed to prove any such claim. 33. In so far as the claim for interest is concerned, a perusal of the award indicates that the learned arbitrator has awarded claim of Rs.17,42,271 towards the claim for purchase of the Tit Bit Plot after deducting advocates' fees. On the said amount of Rs.17,42,271/-, the learned arbitrator has awarded interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of award till payment. On the said amount of Rs.17,42,271/-, the learned arbitrator has awarded interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of award till payment. The learned arbitrator while rejecting the claim for interest for the past period on the ground that there was nothing in the contract to claim any such interest or that there was no notice prior to the filing of the statement claiming any such interest. I am not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Andhyarujina, learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 31(7) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, once the claim for interest is made, the learned arbitrator is bound to award such claim for interest for any period prior to the date of award. In my view, the said provision gives a discretionary power to the learned arbitrator to include in the sum for which the award is made interest, at such rate as it deems reasonable, on the whole or any part of the money, for the whole or any part of the period between the date on which the cause of action arose and the date on which the award is made. It is not in dispute that in the statement of claim, there was no claim for interest beyond 1st December 2011. 34. A perusal of the award indicates that the learned arbitrator has rendered various findings on delay on the part of the petitioner. The learned arbitrator, however, has allowed the claim for purchase of the Tit Bit Plot excluding advocates' fees. In my view, though the reasons recorded by the learned arbitrator in paragraph (vii) at page 27 of the impugned award that there was nothing in the contract to claim any interest or that the claim for interest without any legal basis are not correct, since the learned arbitrator having found gross delay on the part of the petitioner in respect of each activity and the entire project which was ultimately abandoned by both the parties, the learned arbitrator, in my view, has rightly exercised the discretion in rejecting the claim for interest for the past period. I do not propose to interfere with this part of the award also. In my view, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 35. At this stage, Mr. I do not propose to interfere with this part of the award also. In my view, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. 35. At this stage, Mr. Shah, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent states that statement/undertaking of the respondent recorded by this Court by an order dated 21st October 2010 in Arbitration Petition (L) No.1188 of 2010 shall be vacated. 36. A perusal of the said order clearly indicates that the respondent had made a statement before this Court that till further orders, the respondent will not enter into any agreement and/or part with possession of and/or create any third party interest of the nature of or which may prejudice the applicant's rights under the said agreement dated 20th June 2002. The said statement was accepted as and by way of undertaking. The respondent does not seek to continue the said statement made before this Court. 37. Mr.Zal Andhyarujina, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the other hand, submits that the said undertaking accepted by this Court shall be continued till further orders and thus, this Court shall not vacate the said statement/undertaking at this stage. 38. In my view, the respondent had made such statement before this Court in the petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which was accepted as and by way of undertaking by this Court. This Court cannot force the respondent to continue such statement. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the plea for specific performance of the petitioner has been negatived by the learned arbitrator. I have already rejected the petition filed by the petitioner. Interim order which was in operation during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings thus cannot be continued. Interim order passed by this Court recorded in paragraph 5 of the said order dated 21st October 2010 stands vacated. No order as to costs. 37. Oral application of Mr. Andhyarujina, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for continuation of interim order passed by this Court under Section 9 which is vacated by this order is rejected.