the respondent No. 1, inter alia, detailing the obligation of the parties with regard to the re-development of the said property. The collaboration agreement stipulated that the respondent No. 1 was required to reconstruct the said property and provide a basement, stilt, ground floor, first floor, second floor and third floor and hand over the possession thereof to the petitioner and the respondent No. 2. The collaboration agreement also stipulated that in lieu of construction to be undertaken by him, he was entitled to get the first floor of the said property. It is noted from the award that plans were submitted by the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 to the MCD for approval and in terms of the said plans, the construction was to be made. It was her case that her signatures in the application were forged. Suffice to state, the said stand was not agreed to by the learned Arbitrator. It was also her case that during the course of construction, respondent No. 1 had erected pillars at a distance of 30 feet and not 35 feet so as to provide unequal built up area to the two separate owners of the said property and further, that the respondent No. 1 had also proceeded to raise a partition in the building in an unequal manner thereby, leaving a space of only 20 feet on the eastern side of the built up property and 30 feet on the western side of the built up property. This according to her, was contrary to the understanding between the parties. It was the also the petitioner’s case that the respondent No. 1, on
