This case involves two connected Commercial Arbitration Petitions arising from an Arbitral Award dated 5th April 2016. The primary parties are the Panchamias and the Ganatra Group. The dispute centers around the management and share transfers of Ganatra Hotels, which led to various legal actions and arbitration proceedings.

Key Events and Agreements

Incorporation and Shareholders Agreement

• Ganatra Hotels: Incorporated in 1985.
• 1999 Shareholders Agreement: Between Ganatra Group and Panchamias for managing a hotel project in Pune.

Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) and Deed of Amendment

• MoU: Signed on 23rd December 1999.
• Amendment Deed: Signed on 12th January 2000.

Disputes and Arbitration

• Disputes: Arose by June 2000.
• Legal Actions: Suits in Pune and Bombay courts leading to arbitration referrals in 2002.

Interim Settlements and Valuation Reports

• Interim Settlements: In 2007 and 2011.
• Valuation Reports: Submitted in 2011, showing discrepancies.

Interim and Final Awards

• Interim Consent Award: Passed on 30th December 2014.
• Final Arbitral Award: Issued on 5th April 2016, corrected on 25th May 2016.

Contentions by Panchamias

Legal Grounds for Setting Aside the Award

• Counsel: Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar argues the award should be set aside under Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for being contrary to public policy.

Specific Performance and Compensation Issues

• Dispute: Ganatra Group's entitlement to 7,71,650 shares.
• Specific Performance Claim: Argued to be invalid due to the Ganatra Group's failure to perform within the stipulated timeframe.

Judicial Proceedings and Orders

Section 34 Petitions

• Petitions: Filed by both parties to challenge the arbitration award.
• Court Order: Stayed the impugned award on 18th January 2018, requiring Panchamias to deposit the awarded sum.

Key Legal References Cited

Supreme Court Cases

• South East Asia Marine Engineering & Construction Ltd. vs. Oil India Ltd.
• Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. vs. General Electric Co.
• Associated Builders vs. Delhi Development Authority
• Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. vs. National Highways Authority of India

High Court Cases

• S. Pandi Meenakshi vs. Hinduja Leyland
• M.R. Hitech Engineers Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI

Arguments by Dr. Veerendra Tulzapurkar

Contractual and Valuation Disputes

• Variation of Contract: Alleged but not proven.
• Valuation: Arbitrator's valuation at Rs. 94.43 per share deemed arbitrary and without basis, contrary to agreed terms (capped at Rs. 20 per share).

Jurisdiction and Interest

• Excess Shares: Awarding compensation for 5,00,050 shares beyond the arbitration reference.
• Interest: Awarding 10% interest per annum from 31st March 2007 argued as lacking basis.

Arguments by Mr. Sharan Jagtiani

Scope of Interference and Contract Interpretation

• Section 34 Limitations: Court does not act as an appeal court in arbitration matters unless decisions shock the conscience of the court.

Performance and Financial Capacity

• Readiness and Willingness: Ganatra Group ready to perform obligations, supported by Supreme Court judgments.

Agreements and Valuation

• Agreed Valuation: Rs. 94.43 per share within the scope of the agreement and followed accepted methods.
• Agreements: Several meetings and terms expanding the scope of arbitration.

Legal Precedents

• Scope of Section 34: Limited interference, valid arbitration process, and valuation methods used are affirmed by various legal decisions.

Conclusion

• Dismissal of Petition: The challenge to the Award should be dismissed.
• Release of Bank Guarantees: Requested for the Ganatras.

This case exemplifies complex corporate disputes involving multiple agreements, valuation disagreements, and arbitration proceedings, focusing on the interpretation and execution of contractual obligations and share valuation.