Bombay High Court
PRAKASH BABURAO TUPEversusCITY CORPORATION LIMITED
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The petition is allowed and the dispute is referred to the Indian Law Society’s Centre for Arbitration and Mediation for appointment of a sole arbitrator.
Summary
The petitioners, a group of land owners, entered into a joint venture agreement with City Corporation Limited, a developer, on 13 September 2007, which contains an arbitration clause. The petitioners served notice in July 2023 seeking cancellation of the agreement and invoked the arbitration clause in June 2024, proposing retired judges as arbitrators. The respondent denied the allegations and contested the petition. The court noted a prior order in Arbitration Petition No.24 of 2021, which had referred a similar dispute to the Indian Law Society’s Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (ILSCA). Relying on the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the court allowed the petition and directed the parties to ILSCA to appoint a sole arbitrator, setting procedural directions for the arbitration. The court made no determination on the merits of the parties’ substantive claims, leaving the rights of the parties open for determination by the arbitrator.
Issues considered
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to refer the dispute to institutional arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
- Whether the arbitration clause in the 2007 joint venture agreement is enforceable.
- Procedural steps required for appointment of a sole arbitrator by ILSCA.
Legislation cited
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 11(8), 12(1)
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Joint Venture
- Arbitration Clause
- Institutional Arbitration
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
- Civil Procedure
Judgment
4-ARP-124-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO.124 OF 2026
Digitally signed
by SATISH
RAMCHANDRA
SATISH SANGAR
RAMCHANDRA
SANGAR Date:
2026.09.24
1. Mr.Prakash Baburao Tupe, ]
19:50:31
+0530 Age : 65 Years, Occupation : Agriculturist, ]
Residing at : S.No.189, Sadesataranali, ]
Near Railway Gate No.2, Hadapsar, ]
Taluka : Haveli, Pune – 411 028. ]
2. Mrs.Mangal Prakash Tupe, ]
Age : 55 Years, Occupation : Housewife, ]
Residing at : S.No.189, Sadesataranali, ]
Near Railway Gate No.2, Hadapsar, ]
Taluka : Haveli, Pune – 411 028. ]
3. Mr.Nilesh Prakash Tupe, ]
Age : 43 Years, Occupation : Agriculturist, ]
Residing at : S.No.189, Sadesataranali, ]
Near Railway Gate No.2, Hadapsar, ]
Taluka : Haveli, Pune – 411 028. ]
4. Mr.Aniket Prakash Tupe, ]
Age : 41 Years, Occupation : Agriculturist, ]
Residing at : S.No.189, Sadesataranali, ]
Near Railway Gate No.2, Hadapsar, ]
Taluka : Haveli, Pune – 411 028. ]
5. Mr.Chetan Prakash Tupe, ]
Age : 39 Years, Occupation : Agriculturist, ]
Residing at : S.No.189, Sadesataranali, ]
Near Railway Gate No.2, Hadapsar, ]
Taluka : Haveli, Pune – 411 028. ]
6. Smt.Shubhada Shirish Kank, ]
Age : 55 Years, Occupation : Housewife, ]
Residing at : Bungalow No.1, Savarkar Society, ]
Sahakarnagar No.2, Pune – 411 009. ] ...Petitioners
Satish Sangar 1/5
4-ARP-124-2026.doc
Versus
1. City Corporation Limited, ]
A company incorporated under ]
The Companies Act, 1956, Having its ]
registration No.25018435, dated 09.10.2003, ]
Having its registered office at City Chambers – ]
917/19A, Fergusson College Road, Pune – ]
411 004. Through its authorized Managing ]
Director,Mr.Aniruddha Pradyumna Deshpande]
2. Ozas Land Development & Construction ]
Company Pvt. Ltd., A company incorporated ]
under Companies Act, 1956, having its office ]
at : Jahnvi Sadesataranali, Hadapsar, Pune – ]
411 028. Through its Chairman Mr.Mangesh ]
Anantrao Tupe, R–3 Sector Bungalow, ]
Amanora Park Town, Sadesataranali, Hadapsar, ]
Pune – 411 028. ]
3. Mrs.Maya Kundalik Galande, ]
Age : 56 Years, Occupation : Housewife, ]
Residing at : Navratna Society, S.No.3, ]
Vadgaon Sheri, Taluka : Haveli, Pune. ] ...Respondents
====================================================
Mr.Hemant Ghadigaonkar and Advocates for Petitioners.
Ms.Pallavi Chatterjee:-
Mr.Amit Karle a/w Mr.Sameer Advocates for Respondent No.1.
Tiwari:-
====================================================
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 23rd SEPTEMBER 2026
P. C. :-
1. Heard learned Advocate for Petitioners and learned Advocate for
Respondent No.1.
Satish Sangar 2/5
4-ARP-124-2026.doc
2. There is an Agreement of Joint Venture executed on 13 th
September 2007. The present Respondent is described as developer
whereas, the present Petitioners are described as land owners. There is
Arbitration clause No.38 in the said Agreement. It reads thus:-
“38. Any dispute arising out of this agreement shall be
referred to arbitration of the Arbitrator/s acceptable to
all the parties in pursuance of the provisions of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, or any other
law then prevailing, and the decision of the Arbitrator/s
shall be binding on both the parties”.
3. The Petitioners vide their notice dated 18 th July 2023 have
sought for cancellation of the Agreement. The Respondent has replied
vide reply dated 18th August 2023 and denied the allegations. The
Petitioners as per the notice dated 26 th June 2024 have invoked the
Arbitration clause and suggested three names of who are the retired
Judges of this Court. On this background, the present Petition is filed.
4. Learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 has invited my attention
to an order dated 11th February 2025 passed by this Court in
Arbitration Petition No.24 of 2021. That Petition was filed by one
Maya Kundilik Galande. She is shown as co-owner No.7 in the
Agreement dated 13th September 2007 which is part of this Petition.
The present Respondent is also party Respondent to the said Petition.
This Court had referred the dispute to the Institutional Arbitration of
Satish Sangar 3/5
4-ARP-124-2026.doc
Indian Law Society’s Centre for Arbitration and Mediation (ILSCA).
By consent, similar order can be passed in this Petition. The Indian
Law Society can refer the present dispute to the same Arbitrator which
is appointed as directed in the order dated 11 th February 2025. Hence,
the following order is passed:-
-: O R D E R :-
(I) The Petition is allowed.
(II) The dispute amongst the present parties is referred to the
Indian Law Society’s Centre for Arbitration and Mediation
for the purpose of appointing a sole Arbitrator to adjudicate
the dispute arising in between the parties in connection with
the Agreement referred above. The address of the Institution
is as set out below:-
Indian Law Society’s Centre for Arbitration and Mediation
(ILSCA), Law College Road (Chiplunkar Road), Pune : 411
004.
(III) A copy of this order will be communicated to the learned
sole Arbitrator by the Advocates for the Petitioners within a
period of one week from today. The Petitioners shall provide
the contact and communication particulars of the parties to
the Arbitral Tribunal long with a copy of this order.
(IV) The learned sole Arbitrator is requested to forward the
statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section 11(8) read
with Section 12(1) of the Act to the parties within a period
of two weeks from receipt of a copy of this order.
Satish Sangar 4/5
4-ARP-124-2026.doc
(V) The parties shall appear before the learned sole Arbitrator on
such date and at such place as indicated, to obtain
appropriate directions with regard to conduct of the
arbitration including fixing a schedule for pleadings,
examination of witnesses, if any, schedule of hearings etc. At
such meeting, the parties shall provide a valid and functional
email address along with mobile and landline numbers of
the respective Advocates of the parties to the Arbitral
Tribunal. Communications to such email addresses shall
constitute a valid service of correspondence in connection
with the arbitration.
(VI) All arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall be
borne by the parties equally in the first instance, and shall be
subject to any final Award that may be passed by the
Tribunal in relation to costs.
5. The Petition is finally disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
6. The Interim Applications, if any, connected to the aforesaid
proceedings also stand disposed of.
7. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be
taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s
website.
8. It is made clear that the rights of the parties are not decided and
they are kept open to be argued before the learned Arbitrator.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
Satish Sangar 5/5
Checking your session…