2024:BHC-OS:14977 Digitally signed by MUGDHA MUGDHA MANOJ 1 Judgement-CARBP(L) 34078-23.doc MANOJ PARANJAPE PARANJAPE Date:

2024.09.30

17:23:04 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.34078 OF 2023 Gulshan Townplanners LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Firm Registered under the provisions of Limited Liability Partnership Act 2007 Through Auth. Partner Milind Madhukar Masdekar, having registered Office address at Office No 6, Arihant Complex Building No. 2, Old Viva College Road, Virar (W), Tal - Vasai, Dist - Palghar, Maharashtra – 401303. … Petitioner V/s.

1. Gulshan Co-operative Housing Society Limited A Co-operative Society registered under Provisions of Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 having its office at Gulshan Apartment, CTS No. 1163, F.P.

No. 282, TPS II, Dixit Road, besides Sathaye College, Vile Parle (East), Mumbai- 400 057.

2. Baiju Mahendra Doshi Age: Major; Occ: Business;

B-Wing, Gulshan Apartment, Dixit Road, Besides Sathaye College, Vile Parle (E), Mumbai- 400 057. … Respondents -----

Mr. Shanay Shah a/w Smit K. Nagda for the Petitioner.

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Pankaj S. Pandey for Respondent No.1 (Society).

Mr. Simil Purohit, Senior Advocate a/w Arshil Shah i/by Parisha Shah a/w Smita Durve, Rasesh Shah, Tanmay Gujarathi, Vishal Pattabiraman and Rutwij Bapat for Respondent No.2.

-----

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.

RESERVED ON : 10TH SEPTEMBER 2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 30TH SEPTEMBER 2024 JUDGEMENT :

1. While at first blush the captioned Petition would appear to be the usual Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”) in matters of redevelopment agreements entered into between a Developer, (the Petitioner in the present case) and a Cooperative Housing Society, (Respondent No. 1 “the Society” in the present case), the facts of the present case would make plain that it is infact anything but so. Infact, in my view, as the facts of the present case would make clear, the present Petition is nothing but a sheer attempt to misuse of the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.

2. The ‘disputes’ that are stated to have arisen are under a Redevelopment Agreement (“RDA”) and a Supplementary Agreement (“SA”), both dated 20th July 2022 entered into between the Petitioner i.e., the Developer, on the one hand and the Society which comprises of eleven members on the other hand. The RDA has also been individually signed/executed by each of the eleven members of the Society. Admittedly, Respondent No. 2 is neither a member of the Society nor has Respondent No. 2 signed the RDA. Infact, the Petition itself describes Respondent No. 2 as “Occupant on Respondent No. 1’s property”.

3. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is essential to set out the following facts, viz.

i. The Petition concerns a plot of land measuring about 461.52 sq. meters, bearing CTS No. 1163, Final Plot No. 282, T.P.S. II (1st variation final) of Village: Vile Parle (East), Dist. Mumbai Suburban (“the said land”), and a structure/building comprising of ‘A’ and ‘B’ Wings (“the said structure/building”) standing on the said land.

ii. On 13th January 1986, M/s. Gulshan Construction, through a Deed of Assignment, was granted development rights in respect of the said land by its owner, stated to be one Pyaremal Sagormal. Subsequently, M/s. Gulshan Construction built the said structure/building. The A-Wing initially comprised of a ground floor and three upper floors, and B-Wing comprising a ground floor and two upper floors. Later, a fourth floor was added to the A-Wing.

iii. M/s. Gulshan Construction then sold all the flats in the A-Wing to individual purchasers, i.e., the eleven members of the Society. The B- Wing, which has one flat per floor, was initially kept unsold and reserved by a partner of M/s. Gulshan Construction for his personal use. However, in 1993, the partner of M/s. Gulshan Constru