Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3605

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J
Mulund Raviraj Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Rupji Constructions – Respondent
Commercial Arbitration Petition No.559 of 2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Tushar Dahibawkar, Vikhil Dhoka, Abhijit Mukherjee
For the Respondents: Shadab Jan, Sujit Lahoti, Tejasvi Nakashe, Nidhi M. Jain, Dormaan J. Dalal, Shirley Mody, Ankita Singhania, Akshay K., Shivprasad D. Borade, Sayli Apte, Sunita S. Warang, Dinesh Sanap, Mandar Nalawade

Section 9 jurisdiction limited to arbitration agreement parties for subject-matter preservation; ends upon tribunal constitution unless Section 17 inefficacious; non-signatory third parties cannot intervene absent privity or veritable party status.

Headnote:(A) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 2(1)(h), 9, 11, 17, 37 - Section 9 jurisdiction equitable, available only to parties to arbitration agreement for preservation, interim custody or sale of goods or property that is subject-matter of arbitration; limited temporal shelf-life, ends upon arbitral tribunal constitution unless Section 17 remedy inefficacious - Privity to arbitration agreement foundational; non-signatories not veritable parties absent demonstrable proximity, consent, de facto connection, common control or composite transaction. (Paras 19-22, 27-29)

(B) Section 9 Court not extraordinary writ jurisdiction; cannot entertain third-party claims from unrelated decrees, projects or family disputes; amounts deposited enure to benefit of arbitration parties only; surplus beyond securing signatory interests released post-tribunal assessment; prior restraints varyable by tribunal commensurate with arbitration subject-matter. (Paras 23-29, 34-39, 41-47)

(C) Acts of court prejudice no one; time spent in Section 9 proceedings excluded for limitation in third-party claims; undertakings to settle unrelated debts enforceable via contempt post-surplus release. (Paras 50, 43)

Facts of the case:
Petition under Section 9 filed by society against developer pursuant to development agreement containing arbitration clause, seeking injunctions, asset disclosures, deposits. Prolonged proceedings with 31 interim applications by third parties (decree-holders from other projects, allottees, tenants, family members) seeking intervention, fund releases. Tribunal constituted in 2024; Section 17 application and challenging petition filed.

Findings of Court:
Section 9 petition and all interim applications disposed; third-party interventions rejected; tribunal to assess security needs for society's claims, release surplus to developer, vary restraints; court commissioner handover; fees paid.

Issues: Scope of Section 9 jurisdiction post-tribunal constitution; maintainability of third-party interventions lacking privity; handling of deposited amounts, prior restraints, undertakings.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 9 preserves arbitration subject-matter for signatories only; third parties without privity or veritable status cannot intervene or divert funds; jurisdiction merges into Section 17 upon tribunal formation, focusing exclusively on bilateral disputes.

Result: Section 9 petition finally disposed with directions to tribunal; all interim applications disposed/rejected/withdrawn as detailed.

Table of Content
1. section 9 petition history and tribunal appointment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. third-party interim applications unrelated to arbitration agreement. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. review of parties' submissions and proceedings summary. (Para 17 , 18)
4. section 9 jurisdiction preserves arbitration subject matter for parties. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
5. non-signatories require veritable party proximity for jurisdiction. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
6. december 2017 order imposed broad asset restraints. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
7. section 9 transfers to section 17 post-tribunal formation. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
8. decree-holders excluded; pursue separate execution forums. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)
9. other third parties lack privity; intervention rejected. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)
10. family claims extraneous to arbitration agreement. (Para 53 , 54)
11. society applications subsumed in arbitral proceedings. (Para 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
12. developer applications withdrawn or infructuous. (Para 59 , 60 , 61)
13. mcgm dues recovered via statutory procedures. (Para 62 , 63)
14. recent applications dismissed as misconceived. (Para 64 , 65 , 66)
15. court commissioner handover to registry. (Para 67 , 68 , 69)
16. section 9 petition disposed; tribunal directs future. (Para 70 , 71 , 72)

JUDGEMENT:

Context and Factual Background:

1. This judgement will dispose of Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 559 of 2017 (“Section 9 Petition”), filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) and no less than 31 Interim Applications filed in it.

2. The Section 9 Petition was originally filed in connection with disputes and differences between the Petitioner, Mulund Raviraj Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (“Society”) and Respondent No.1, M/s Rupji Constructions (“Developer”), a partnership firm, with the partners being the other Respondents, Late Mr. Madhukar Rupji (“Madhukar”) and his son, Mr. Tejal Rupji (“Tejal”).

3. The Society and the Developer were parties to a Development Agreement dated May 2, 2013 (“DA”), which is the contract containing the arbitration agreement, giving rise to the jurisdiction under Section 9 and Section 17 and thereby, Section 37 of the Act. Madhukar and Tejal have been in jail for prolonged periods and Madhukar passed away in 2022, while his son, Tejal continues as a partner of the Developer.

4. The Section 9 Petition had been filed way back on October 6, 2017 by the Society, seeking various reliefs against the Developer, including injunction against creation of third party rights; injunction against claiming of any benefits under the DA; injunction against the Municipal Authorities from sanctioning any plan; directions to the Developer to pay statutory dues pursuant to the DA; certain disclosures of assets; and deposit of a sum of Rs.7 Crores.

5. Various orders came to be passed in the Section 9 Petition from time to time, including disclosure of assets and injunctions that were directed by Order dated December 14, 2017 (“December 2017 Order”) and deposit of various sums with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court. Proceedings under Section 9 Petition continued for a prolonged period of time until an Arbitral Tribunal was appointed on September 2, 2024, when a Learned Single Judge of this Court disposed of Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No.6622 of 2022, appointing a sole arbitrator under Section 11 of the Act (“Section 11 Application”).

6. Among others, the directions issued under the Section 9 Petition included attaching houses, cars, wrist watches and such other assets of Madhukar and Tejal, and their sale and deposit of proceeds with the Court. Multiple interim applications too came to be filed by persons who are not parties to the arbitration agreement, either as a signatory or as a non-signatory veritable party. These will be dealt with subsequently in this judgement. In all, a sum of over Rs. ~

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3605

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYSOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JMulund Raviraj Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. – AppellantVersusRupji Constructions – RespondentCommercial Arbitration Petition No.559 of 2017

Section 9 jurisdiction limited to arbitration agreement parties for subject-matter preservation; ends upon tribunal constitution unless Section 17 inefficacious; non-signatory third parties cannot intervene absent privity or veritable party status.

Cases Referred (2)

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J
Mulund Raviraj Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Rupji Constructions – Respondent
Commercial Arbitration Petition No.559 of 2017