Bombay High Court
KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITEDversusPANT NAGAR SHRADDHA CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- ARIF S DOCTOR
Holding
Observations made at the interlocutory stage under Section 17 cannot prejudice the petitioner at the final hearing.
Summary
The petition was filed by Kumar Builders Project Pune Private Limited against Pant Nagar Shraddha Co‑Operative Housing Society Limited seeking clarification that the observations made by the trial court in an interlocutory order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would not prejudice the petitioner at the final hearing. The petitioner argued that the petition could be withdrawn if such clarification were granted. The respondent opposed the relief. The court examined whether interlocutory observations can bind a party at the final hearing. It held that observations made at the interlocutory stage to decide an application under Section 17 cannot affect the petitioner at the time of the final hearing. Accordingly, the court disposed of the petition without granting any further relief.
Issues considered
- Do observations made in an interlocutory order under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 bind the petitioner at the final hearing?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- Arbitration
- Section 17
- Interlocutory order
- Petition disposal
- Commercial arbitration
Judgment
1/1 52-CARBP-854-2024 (OS).DOC
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV NAMDEV
NAMDEV BARE
BARE Date:
2026.08.07
17:04:54
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 854 OF 2024
Kumar Builders Project Pune Private Limited ...Petitioner
Versus
Pant Nagar Shraddha Co Operative Housing Society Limited ...Respondent
_______
Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w Mr. Dhaval Gandhy i/b Tushar Goradia, for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Pramod Bhosale a/w Ms. Hetal Jain i/b Devika Nigade, for the Respondent.
_______
CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2026
P.C.
1. After arguing the matter at some length, Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for
the Petitioner submitted that the Petition would not be pressed if the Court could
only clarify that the observations made in the impugned order would not come
in the way of the Petitioner at the time of final hearing.
2. Needless to state that observations made at the interlocutory stage to
decide an application under Section 17 cannot come in the way of the Petitioner
at the time of final hearing. Accordingly, the Petition is disposed of.
[ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.]
Vaibhav
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.