##PAGE1##

2026:BHC-O S:23211 CNR No : HCBM020339152026 AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION IN IT’S COMMERCIAL DIVISION INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.33914 OF 2026 IN COMM ARBITRATION PETITION NO.682 OF 2025 ATUL Laxmi Madhukar Athawale … Applicant GANESH KULKARNI In the matter between Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Laxmi Madhukar Athawale … Petitioner Date: 2026.10.27 12:11:16 +0530 Vs.

1. SSD Escatics Private Limited

2. Vivek Tanna

3. Jayesh Tanna

4. Deep Tanna

5. Jeki Jitendra Mehta

6. Shweta Patel 7. Prashant Eshi

8. DBS Bank India Limited … Respondents Mr. Baharaiz Irani with Ms. Afrin Dalal, Mr. Anosh Irani, Mr. Amit Padwal, and Ms. Saniya Ahmed for the Petitioner/Applicant.

Mr. Rajiv Narula with Mr. Devansh Shah, Mr. Shrey Shah, and Mr. Aksha Huddar i/by Huddar & Associates for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 21, 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 27, 2026 JUDGMENT:

1. The present Interim Application (L) No. 33914 of 2026 has been filed by the Petitioner asking that she should be allowed to withdraw INR 1,25,00,000/-, which was deposited on behalf of Respondent No. 1 as per the order dated 24 July 2024, as modified on 8 August 2024, together with the interest earned on it. The main question to be considered is whether, looking at the facts of this case, the Petitioner can be permitted to take this amount before the disputes between the parties are finally decided in arbitration.

2. I have heard the learned Advocates appearing for both sides. I have considered their arguments, the documents placed on record and the earlier orders passed by this Court. The facts of this case need to be looked at carefully. The Petitioner is a 75-year-old widow who is taking dialysis treatment. She says that she spent all her life savings for purchasing Flat No. 301, situated on the 3rd Floor of Kapil Vastu CHS Ltd., Goregaon (West), Mumbai. According to her, Respondent No. 1 accepted her money even though the flat had been sold to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in December 2017 and was mortgaged with DBS Bank. After this, the Bank auctioned the flat for INR 1,15,00,000/-, and the Petitioner was dispossessed from the flat on 1 April 2025.

3. The Petitioner says that she was not told about the earlier sale and mortgage of the flat. According to her, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 told her that Respondent No. 1 had a clear title and was entitled to sell the flat. Believing what they told her, she paid INR

85,10,000/- through cheques and RTGS and gave gold worth INR 40,00,000/-. Receipts mentioning Flat No. 301 were issued and signed by Respondent No. 2. The Petitioner relies on these receipts, the Memorandum of Understanding dated 13 January 2020, the correspondence with the Bank and the statements made by the Respondents themselves in different proceedings.

4. These facts have been considered by this Court earlier. The dispute was considered when this Court decided the interim reliefs in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 18631 of 2023 by order dated 24 July 2024. In that order, this Court considered the objections raised by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 about the existence and genuineness of the Memorandum of Understanding. In paragraph 14, this Court observed that the preliminary objection was “entirely devoid of merit” and “downright dishonest”.

5. The Court had given reasons for making these observations. The receipts issued by Respondent No. 1 and signed by Respondent No. 2 were not denied. The payments mentioned in those receipts were not disputed. The receipts mentioned Flat No. 301, and the company seal appearing on the Memorandum of Understanding was not denied. Further, Respondent No. 2 had not said in his affidavit that the signature appearing on the Memorandum of Understanding was not his signature. Paragraph 15 of the same order this Court observed that Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 had not explained the fraud which, according to them, was committed by the Peti