High Court of Judicature at Bombay Allows Petitioner in Section 9 Arbitration Petition to Obtain Interim Measures for Redevelopment of Cooperative Housing Society. Court Directed Court Receiver to Execute Tripartite Agreements for Two Disputed Flats Upon Demonstrating Pari Passu Treatment Under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim measures in relation to a Development Agreement for redevelopment of property of a co-operative housing society.

Petitioner sought appointment of Court Receiver to take possession of Flat No. 6 and Flat No. 12 and hand them over to petitioner when revised IOD is obtained; and to execute tripartite agreements in respect of those flats.

Redevelopment stalled due to non-cooperation of two members holding out from vacating flats, leading to stand-off; inter se family disputes among members/occupants.

No prior decisions in this Section 9 petition mentioned. There is a pending status quo order dated December 15, 2009 passed in Notice of Motion No. 3607 of 2007 in Suit No. 2534 of 2007 involving Respondent No.2 and siblings. An eviction suit filed by Respondent No.7 against his brother and sister-in-law is pending in the Small Causes Court, Bandra.

Whether interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 should be granted to allow redevelopment to proceed despite objections by two members regarding terms, entitlements, and procedural infirmities. Whether the Court Receiver should be appointed to take possession of Flat No.6 and Flat No.12 and hand them over to the petitioner upon obtaining the revised Intimation of Disapproval. Whether inter se family disputes over the two flats should impede the collective redevelopment of the society. Whether the rights of non-cooperating members can be protected through conditions such as demonstrating pari passu treatment before execution of tripartite agreements.

Petitioner argued that 18 of 20 members agreed to the redevelopment, first installment of hardship compensation of Rs.37,27,000 had been paid, earlier developer settled for Rs.5 crore, IOD dated December 20, 2024 obtained, and only two flats blocked progress; sought Court Receiver to take possession and execute tripartite agreements. Respondent No.2 objected to terms of Development Agreement including inadequacy of security, sharing of development potential, treatment of terraces, absence of force majeure, and insisted on PAAA execution, Revised IOD, and notice to vacate before vacating. Respondent No.3 argued that Respondent No.2 is bound by a status quo order dated December 15, 2009 and that no notice of Development Agreement was given; court observed inter se grievances not relevant to collective redevelopment. Spectrum argued that 11 general body meetings held since 2018, Respondent No.2 never attended and in writing invited forcible vacation; flats above and below have identical measurements. Respondent No.7 submitted Flat No.12 purchased by him, mother added for convenience, brother executed release deed, license revoked, eviction suit pending; willing to hand over possession. Respondent No.8 claimed one-third share in Flat No.12 and entitlement to entire payment; contended that Leena's occupation pointed to his entitlement. Respondent No.9 Leena submitted that she and her children live in Flat No.12, produced passports showing address, and was willing to vacate if transit compensation paid to her.

The court reasoned that objections about terms, entitlements, and procedural infirmities in a redevelopment agreement are for other forums such as regulatory and quasi-judicial authorities under cooperative housing society law, and cannot stall redevelopment. The collective decision of the society as reflected in the Development Agreement prevails over individual objections that do not gain acceptance among other members. Inter se family disputes over two flats are separate and should be agitated in pending suits; they cannot hold up the redevelopment of the entire property. Interim measures under Section 9 can be granted to balance competing interests, appoint a Court Receiver, and ensure that tripartite agreements are executed upon demonstrating pari passu treatment, thereby enabling redevelopment while protecting the rights of all parties.

What is writ large on the face of the record is that disagreement in handover of just two flats is holding up the redevelopment of the entire property. The Petitioner shall be entitled to approach the Learned Court Receiver within a period of one week from the upload of this Order on the website of this Court, to execute the tripartite agreement in respect of Flat No. 6 and Flat No. 12 of Spectrum, by demonstrating to the Learned Court Receiver that the terms of the documentation presented for signing, accord pari passu treatment to the entitlements for these flats and that any variations to the documentation is only in respect of the identification of these flats and the proportionate and commensurate variations linked to the area and relate Each of the following steps forms part of an integral interwoven bundle of adjustments to address the ends of justice and the best interests of all parties, without prejudicing them in their respective positions in other litigation underway among them

Petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in connection with a Development Agreement dated July 31, 2024. The matter was reserved on March 24, 2025 and pronounced on April 16, 2025. No prior procedural history in this petition is mentioned. Related pending proceedings include Suit No.2534 of 2007 with Notice of Motion No.3607 of 2007 in the High Court and an eviction suit in the Small Causes Court, Bandra.

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9