Bombay High Court
ICICI Home Finance Company LimitedversusSushilabai Ranjit Rathod
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court confirmed the interim injunction and held that the remaining reliefs must be pursued before the arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Summary
The petition was filed by ICICI Home Finance Company Limited against Sushilabai Ranjit Rathod seeking relief under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The High Court had earlier granted an ad‑interim injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with the mortgaged property. The key issue was whether the remaining reliefs claimed in the petition should be decided by the court or referred to the arbitrator under Section 17 of the Act. The Court observed that the petitioner was already adequately protected by the interim injunction and that any further questions could be agitated before the arbitrator. Consequently, the Court confirmed the injunction and disposed of the petition, directing the parties to pursue the other reliefs through arbitration. The decision underscores the Court’s deference to the arbitration process for matters covered by the arbitration agreement.
Issues considered
- Whether the reliefs other than the interim injunction should be decided by the High Court or referred to the arbitrator under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Interim Injunction
- Mortgaged Property
- Section 17
- High Court
- Petition Disposal
Judgment
42-ARBP-494-2025.doc
Vivekanand
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
VIVEKANAND
VIVEKANAND RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BONDE
BONDE Date:
2026.09.16
18:10:26
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 494 OF 2025
+0530
ICICI Home Finance Company Limited … Petitioner
V/s.
Sushilabai Ranjit Rathod … Respondent
Mr. Nikhil Rajani i/b M/s. V. Deshpande & Co., for the
Petitioner.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 16, 2026
P.C.:
1. This Court has already granted ad-interim relief in terms of
prayer clause (c). It appears that, the order of injunction is in
respect of the mortgaged property.
2. Since, the petitioner is sufficiently protected by grant reliefs
in terms of prayer clause (c) of the Petition. For the rests prayers, it
shall be open for Petitioner to apply before the Arbitrator under
Section 17 of the Act.
3. Keeping all questions open to be agitated before the
Arbitrator, the present petition stands disposed of by confirming
relief in terms of prayer clause (c).
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
1
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.