2026:BHC-OS:2078 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L.) NO. 36533 OF 2025 WITH COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L.) NO. 37280 OF 2025 ISON Builders LLP ….. PETITIONER/

APPLICANT : VERSUS :

Om Sai Ram Cooperative Housing Society (Proposed) & Ors. …. RESPONDENTS Mr. Karl Tamboly with Mr. Rohan Savant, Mr. Chirag Sarawagi and Mr. Yash Sinha i/by. Tushar Goradia, for the Petitioner-Applicant.

Mr. Prateek Seksaria, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Mr. Nishant Chothani and Mr. Yash S. Jain, for Respondent Nos.3 to 22.

Ms. Pooja Yadav i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi, for MCGM-Respondent No.2.

Mr. Santosh Nachnekar, AO, (I/C) Estate Present.

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

JUDGMENT RESD. ON : 13 JANUARY 2026. JUDGMENT PRON. ON : 23 JANUARY 2026.

JUDGMENT:

1) Petitioner-Developer has filed Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 36533 of 2025 seeking interim measures under Sections 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking stay on termination notice dated 25 October 2025 by which the First Respondent-

Society has terminated the Development Agreement executed by it in favour of the Petitioner. Petitioner has further sought injunction against Respondent No.1-Society and against its members (Respondent Nos.3 to

22) from appointing any other developer to develop the property.

2) Commercial Arbitration Application (L.) No. 37280 of 2025 is filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of Arbitrator for adjudication of disputes and differences between the Petitioner and First Respondent-Society.

3) The land bearing C.S.No. 109 (Part) situated at D/8, Gandhi Nagar Dainik Shivneri Junction and Majrekar Lane, Lower Parel (West) Mumbai is owned by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). There are 28 tenanted structures on the said land, allottees of which are municipal tenants. Respondent Nos. 3 to 22 claim to be the municipal tenants and have formed Respondent No.1 as the proposed cooperative housing society for the purpose of carrying out development on the land. In the Annual General Meeting held on 29 March 2014, the society resolved to appoint Petitioner as the developer for developing the property. A Development Agreement dated 22 December 2014 was executed between the Petitioner and Respondent No.1-proposed Society. The Power of Attorney dated 30 December 2014 was also executed in favour of the partners of the Petitioner-Firm.

4) The Petitioner claims to have submitted redevelopment proposal under Regulation No. 33(7) of Development Control Regulations, 1991 (DCR 1991). Petitioner relies on Architect’s letter dated 20 June 2015. A circular was issued on 10 October 2016 by MCGM providing for guidelines for redevelopment of municipal tenanted properties under the modified Regulation 33(7) of DCR 1991. The revised guidelines were issued on 17 November 2020. Under both the guidelines various steps are prescribed for processing the redevelopment proposal which includes the process of tenancy verification/consent verification and issuance of Annexure-2. According to the Petitioner, a technical scrutiny in respect of the redevelopment proposal was conducted in July and August 2018. Petitioner claims that due to Covid-19 pandemic, the proposal could not progress. It is claimed that 28 sub-tenants were converted into principal tenants by the Municipal Corporation. On 31 March 2021, the Municipal Commissioner wrote to the Petitioner calling it upon to provide its financial capacity. By further letter dated 17 November 2021, Petitioner was once again called upon to demonstrate its financial capacity. On account of Petitioner’s failure to do so, the redevelopment proposal was recorded as filed by the Municipal Corporation vide letter dated 23 May 2022. The society and the Petitioner wrote to the Municipal Corporation whereafter the proposal was revived. Petitioner claims to have submitted the requisite documents. By notice dated 29 M