Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
JAYANT BANERJI, UMESH M. ADIGA, JJ.
Mantri Developers Pvt Ltd, rep. By Its Director, Mr. Mohan Kumar S.J. – Petitioner
Versus
Gokulam Shelters Private Limited and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 36101 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 16-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the parties and petition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court observations and implications of jurisdiction. (Para 3 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. background of agreements between parties. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments against impleading mantri developers. (Para 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. final decision on the arbitration agreement legitimacy. (Para 41 , 42 , 44) |
ORDER :
JAYANT BANERJI, J.
1. The array of parties in this petition is as under:
| RANK OF THE PARTIES | ||
| ARBITRATION | HIGH COURT | |
| MANTRI DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, [Mantri Developers] A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, C-5, RICH HOMES, NO.5/1, RICHMOND ROAD, BANGALORE-560025, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, MR.MOHAN | RESPONDENT NO.2 | PETITIONER |
| 1. GOKULAM SHELTERS, [Gokulam Shelters] PRIVATE LIMITED, A COMPANY EXISTING UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 | CLAIMANT NO.1 | RESPONDENT NO.1 |
| 2. KRISHNA LILA PARK FOUNDATION, [Krishna Lila], A REGISTERED TRUST | CLAIMANT NO.2 | RESPONDENT NO.2 |
| 3. ISKCON CHARITIES, [ISKCON Charities] A REGISTERED TRUST | CLAIMANT NO.3 | RESPONDENT NO.3 |
| 4. INDIAN HERITAGE FOUNDATION, [IHF] A REGISTERED TRUST GSPL TO 4 HAVING OFFICE AT 8TH MILE, DODDAKALLASANDRA POST, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 062, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SRI.SHAMA SUNDER MUDUKUTHORE | CLAIMANT NO.4 | RESPONDENT NO.4 |
| 5. M/S. CASTLES VISTA PVT. LTD., [Castles Vista] A COMPANY EXISTING UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013 AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT C-5, RICH HOMES, NO.5/1, RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025 AND REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. | RESPONDENT NO.1 | RESPONDENT NO.5 |
2. The instant petition has been filed seeking to set aside of an order dated 28.11.2024 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal whereby the Arbitral Tribunal by majority has allowed an application bearing IA No.5 filed by the claimants.
3. By the IA No.5 the claimants had sought impleadment of Mantri Developers under Section 2 (1)(h) read with Section 7 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, [Act 1996]. By the impugned order of 28.11.2024, the Arbitral Tribunal by majority, allowed the application aforesaid, directing impleadment of Mantri Developers on the ground that even though it is non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, it has by its action and conduct consented to be bound by the arbitration agreement. For coming up this conclusion, the Arbitral Tribunal, by majority relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. ONGC Limited Vs. Discovery Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. , (2022) 8 SCC 42 , which was approved in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Cox and Kings Ltd. Vs. SAP India Pvt. Ltd. , (2024) 4SCC 1, Consequential directions were also issued.
4. The case set out in the petition is that, Mantri Developers being a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is a pioneer developer in real estate sector around Bengaluru and other cities which has undertaken various development activities both residential and commercial. It has also received prestigious awards in the field of real estate development. Gokulam Shelters (Respondent No.1) is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, which is majorly involved in achieving the aims and goals of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4, that is, Krishna Lila, ISKCON Charities, IHF, who are the Claimant Nos. 1 to 4 in the arbitration proceedings. Castles Vista is the respondent in the arbitration proceedings.
5. ISKCON Charities and IHF, being the land owners of certain plots of land, approached Mantri Developers to develop the lands. Pursuant to which, the petitioner and the Respondent Nos.3 and 4 entered into an agreement dated 26.06.2010 with regard to the development and purchase of the portion of lands belonging to the Respondent Nos.3 and 4. Thereafter, they entered into a supplementary agreement dated 29.07.2010 incorporating certain changes in the terms and conditions, which agreement was in the nature of addendum/amendment to the first agreement of 26.06.2010.
6. Thereafter a second supplementary agreement, [SSA] dated 29.09.2010 was entered
AI
Non-signatories can be bound by arbitration agreements through mutual consent and factors like performance, commonality of subject matter, and the relationship with signatories.
Dissenting non-signatory member of cooperative society not bound by arbitration clause in development agreement with developer; lacks consent as veritable party despite beneficiary status or executin....
A non-signatory cannot be impleaded in arbitration proceedings absent explicit consent, highlighting the importance of party autonomy and contractual privity in arbitration agreements.
The main legal point established is that disputes involving third party rights and allegations of fraud may be deemed non-arbitrable, requiring adjudication in a properly instituted proceeding with t....
Non-signatory cannot be impleaded in arbitration absent conduct showing consent via participation in contract's negotiation, performance or termination; substantial financial interest alone insuffici....
Impleadment of non-signatories in arbitration proceedings is impermissible unless a direct contractual relationship exists, underscoring the importance of party autonomy.
A non-signatory party could be subjected to arbitration provided these transactions were with group of companies and there was a clear intention of the parties to bind both, the signatory as well as ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
