Bombay High Court
Mangesh ShindeversusSakshi Dant
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- AMIT BORKAR
Holding
The court partially allowed the petition, confirming the ad interim relief against Respondent No.1 while disposing of the claims against Respondents 2‑5 due to lack of an arbitration agreement.
Summary
The petition concerned a development agreement and a sale deed that each contained arbitration clauses, but the owners (petitioners) were not parties to the sale deed. The petitioners alleged that Respondent No.1, the developer, failed to fulfil contractual obligations and sought continuation of ad interim relief granted on 15 September 2025. The court examined whether the arbitration clause bound the parties and whether it could entertain the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It held that the arbitration clause did bind Respondent No.1, allowing the interim relief to continue pending arbitral proceedings, but found no arbitration agreement with Respondents 2‑5, so it could not adjudicate their substantive claims. Consequently, the court partially allowed the petition, confirmed the interim relief against Respondent No.1, and disposed of the claims against Respondents 2‑5, directing the petitioners to pursue other legal remedies.
Issues considered
- Whether the arbitration clause in the Development Agreement and Sale Deed creates a binding arbitration agreement between the petitioners and Respondent No.1.
- Whether the court can adjudicate the petitioners' substantive rights against Respondents 2‑5 in the absence of an arbitration agreement under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- Whether the ad interim relief granted on 15 September 2025 should continue pending the arbitral proceedings.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Section 9
- Interim relief
- Arbitral tribunal
- Development agreement
- Sale deed
- Court jurisdiction
- Enforcement of arbitration clause
Judgment
16-ARBP-420-25+F.doc
Sayali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 420 OF 2025
Rohit Agarwal … Petitioner
V/s.
Sakshi Dant … Respondents
SAYALI WITH
DEEPAK
UPASANI ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 9702 OF 2025
WITH
Digitally signed
by SAYALI
DEEPAK ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 436 OF 2025
UPASANI
Date: 2026.07.31 WITH
17:12:04 +0530
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.435 OF 2025
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 428 OF 2026
WITH
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 437 OF 2025
Mr. Sanjiv A. Sawant with Abhishek Deshmukh WITH
Bhakti Wast, for Petitioner.
Mr. Darshit K. Jain i/b Mrs. Divya D. Jain with Arushi
Gandhi, for Respondents 3 to 5.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JULY, 31 2026
P.C.:
1. A prima facie consideration of the material placed on record
indicates that the Development Agreement executed by the
owners in favour of Respondent No. 1, the developer, contains an
1
16-ARBP-420-25+F.doc
arbitration clause. It further appears that the Sale Deed executed
by Respondent No. 1 in favour of the Petitioners also incorporates
an arbitration clause. However, the owners are not parties to the
said Sale Deed executed between Respondent No. 1 and the
Petitioners.
2. Upon a prima facie assessment of the pleadings and
documents on record, it appears that Respondent No. 1 has failed
to discharge its contractual obligations. Consequently, the
Petitioners have succeeded in establishing a prima facie case for
continuation of the ad interim protection granted by this Court by
its order dated 15 September 2025 as against Respondent No. 1.
3. However, insofar as Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned,
in the absence of any arbitration agreement binding the
Petitioners and the said respondents, this Court, while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996, cannot adjudicate upon the Petitioners' substantive
rights against them on merits. It shall, therefore, be open to the
Petitioners to pursue such remedies against Respondent Nos. 2 to
5 as may be available to them in accordance with law before the
competent forum.
4. In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon overall
assessment of the material record, the following order is passed:
i) The Petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The ad interim relief granted by this Court by order
dated 15 September 2025 against Respondent No. 1 is
2
16-ARBP-420-25+F.doc
confirmed and shall continue to remain in force till the
conclusion of the arbitral proceedings before the Arbitral
Tribunal, subject to any order that may be passed by the
Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with law.
(iii) Insofar as Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, the
Petition stands disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to
avail such remedies as may be available to them in law
before the appropriate forum.
(iv) All rival contentions of the Petitioners and Respondent
Nos. 2 to 5 on the merits are expressly kept open for
consideration before the appropriate forum, and no
observations made in this order shall be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of their respective
claims.
(v) It is clarified that the findings recorded in this order are
prima facie in nature and have been made only for the
purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 9 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitral
Tribunal, as well as any other competent forum, shall decide
the proceedings independently and uninfluenced by any
observations contained in this order.
(vi) There shall be no order as to costs.
(vii) The Petition is accordingly disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
3
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.