IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.175 OF 2025 Pranav Constructions Limited ….Petitioner Versus Priyadarshini Co-operative Housing Society Limited & Ors. ...Respondents Adv. Harsh L. Behany a/w. Ms Prachi Sanghvi i/b. HN Legal, Advocates for Petitioner.

Mr. Yash Dhakad, Advocate for Respondent No.1-Society.

Mr. Rajiv Narula a/w. Ms. Nidhi Loya i/b. Jhangiani Narula &

Associates, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Mr. Allen Mathew i/b. Jamshed Ansari, Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4.

Mr. Jaydeep Deo a/w. Onkar Gawade, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5 & 6.

CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

DATE : JUNE 20, 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT :

Digitally Context and Background:

signed by AARTI AARTI GAJANAN GAJANAN PALKAR PALKAR Date:

2025.07.02 1. This is a Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and

13:32:58 +0530 Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) seeking certain reliefs, primarily in the nature of seeking the exercise of the Court's power to ensure that certain members vacate their premises and hand over the same to the Petitioner (“Developer”) in connection with the redevelopment of the building of Respondent No. 1 (“Society”).

2. The Developer and the Society have executed a development agreement dated March 12, 2025 (“Agreement”). The Developer was selected in 2022, and the parties have eventually executed the Agreement. Overall, the Society has 23 members, who amongst them, own 16 residential flats, 6 garages, with one member owning commercial premises. Commercial activity has been carried out in some of the garages for very long. In fact, their membership in the Society is identified by their commercial names – for instance, 1) Photo Studio; and 2) PAL Dairy.

3. Respondent No2. is entitled to Garage No.6, which was last run as a travel agency. Prior to that, the business carried out was of a milk dairy. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to commercial premises on the ground floor, which were being used as a branch of a bank and thereafter, a shop carrying out a bridal store. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are entitled to Flat No.8. It is common ground that these are the Respondents who are holding out. They have refused to sign the Agreement and consequently, do not have privity to the arbitration agreement contained therein.

4. Further, Respondent Nos.3 and 4 have gifted their premises to their son and the granddaughter, both adults, as long ago, as September 21, 2023. In other words, the persons entitled to the commercial premises are these two giftees, who have admittedly not been made party to the Petition.

5. What makes the Agreement in this Petition stand out in stark contrast to other development agreements that are usually brought to Court under Section 9 of the Act is that it does not entail homogenous and pari passu treatment of all members. The Agreement is a structured one and proposes to treat different classes of members differently:-

a) The owners of all residential flats are being provided an enhanced area of 39% of the current size of the flats –

Respondents No. 5 and 6 fall in this category;

b) The owners of the commercial premises (in which the bank, and now a bridal store, have been validly run) i.e. Respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are a unique class of members in their own right, are being given an enhancement of only 19% in the floor area;

c) The owners of the garages are being given a 20% reduction in their floor area – Respondent No. 2 falls in this category.

Flat Owners:

6. Respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are flat owners, have no grievance about the redevelopment proposal per se. However, they have a fundamental difference about the manner of computing the area that they are entitled to, and about the stamp duty payable for the redevelopment and their share of such duty. They insist that the Society should challenge the computation and not charge them their share since it is purported to be wrong. They are willing to vacate their flat if they are protected from the claim towards the