Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN
Mohammed Ali M. Sali (since deceased) Through Legal Heirs (a) Fatima Nalakath Sahusintavide – Appellant
Versus
Rajaram Chavan Real Estate Private Limited – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.
1. The Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 3903 of 2023 is a Petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), challenging orders passed by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal on February 14, 2019 (“First Impugned Order”) and December 15, 2022 (“Second Impugned Order”), under Section 17 of the Act (collectively, “Impugned Orders”). This Petition is filed by the legal heirs of the original Petitioner (“Owner”), late Mohammed Ali M. Sali, who are aggrieved by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal refusing to hand over the possession of 16 flats developed by the Respondent, Rajaram Chavan Real Estate Private Limited (“Developer”), as an interlocutory measure pending conduct of the arbitration proceedings. This Petition is referred to as “Owner’s Petition”.
2. The Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 5353 of 2023 is also a Petition filed under Section 37 of the Act, impugning the same Impugned Orders, and is filed by Flat Purchasers led by Mr. Shadab Y. Mukadam, a flat purchaser, seeking a direction for possession of flats legitimately acquired by them under validly executed registered agreements with the Owner, which
Third parties affected by Section 17 interim orders refusing possession have Section 37 locus; tribunal's blanket lien over sold flats perverse ignoring allocation confirmations and developer's knowl....
The court upheld the Developer's right to amend construction plans under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act, emphasizing the need to consider balance of convenience and irreparable injury in grantin....
The jurisdiction of the Appellate Court dealing with an appeal under Section 37 against the judgment in a petition under Section 34 is more constrained than the jurisdiction of the Court dealing with....
The lack of privity of contract between the Plaintiff and the new developer led to the denial of ad-interim relief.
Third-party purchasers cannot enforce rights against a society after the termination of the developer's agreement; their remedies lie solely with the developer.
The court may exercise jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act if the remedy under Section 17 is found to be inefficacious.
The court emphasized that a plaintiff must demonstrate prima facie ownership, balance of convenience, and risk of irreparable harm to secure a temporary injunction.
The court determined that interim relief under the Arbitration Act requires a prima facie case and balance of convenience; in this case, the absence of a viable development plan led to vacating the i....
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
