Individual members of a co-operative society are bound by the covenants of a development agreement, and disputes regarding their entitlements cannot obstruct interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep V. Marne, J.

1. These Appeals are filed under the provisions of Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act) challenging the order dated 20 June 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of Arbitration Petition No. 175/2025 filed under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act without grant of any relief in favour of the Petitioner therein.

2. Priyadarshini Co-operative Housing Society Limited (Society) is the owner of land and building situated at Final Plot No.42A of Town Planning Scheme No. II of Santacruz corresponding to CTS No. G/112, G/113 and G/114 admeasuring 1006.40 sq.mtrs (1254.19 sq.mtrs. as per Property Card), Bandra Taluka, Mumbai Suburban District at 112 Swami Vivekanand Road, Mumbai – 400 054 consisting of ground plus three upper floors comprising of 16 residential flats, one bank premises on ground floor and six garages. The Development Agreement dated 12 March 2025 came to be executed between the Society and Pranav Constructions Limited (Developer), under which development rights for redevelopment of Society’s building were granted in favour of the Developer. The Developer obtained Intimation of Disapproval (IOD) dated 27 March 2025 from Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and thereafter issued notice to vacate dated 28 March 2025 on the Society calling it upon to ensure vacation of all the flats, bank premises and garages within 30 days. By letter dated 7 April 2025, the Society forwarded 20 consent letters by its members informing the Developer that some of the members (Respondent Nos.2 to 6) have refused to vacate possession of their respective premises. Respondent No.2 occupies Garage No.6, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 occupy the bank premises on the ground floor and Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 occupy residential Flat No. 8 on the first floor. The Developer served Advocate’s notice dated 8 April 2025 to the Society as well as to Respondent Nos.2 to 6 for execution of consent letters for vacation of possession of their respective premises. Since Respondent Nos.2 to 6 failed to cooperate in the redevelopment process by vacating possession of their respective premises, the Developer filed Arbitration Petition No.175/2025 under the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, inter-alia, seeking interim measures of direction against Respondent Nos.2 to 6 for signing and executing consent letters for vacation of the premises in their occupation in terms of the Development Agreement dated 12 March 2025. Alternatively, direction was sought for execution of consent letter either by the Court Receiver or Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 6. This is how Arbitration Petition No. 175/2025 was filed by the Developer for the purpose of ensuring vacation of the premises in occupation of Respondent Nos.2 to 6 for smooth carriage of the redevelopment process.

3. The Arbitration Petition was resisted by Respondent Nos.2 to 6 by filing their respective Affidavits in Reply. After considering the pleadings and the submissions canvassed on behalf of the rival parties, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dispose of the Arbitration Petition No. 175/2025 without grant of any relief in favour of the Developer by judgment and order dated 20 June 2025. The Developer is aggrieved by judgment and order