Bombay High Court Dismisses Developer's Section 9 Petition for Interim Relief in Redevelopment Dispute — Arbitration Clause Not Invoked Before Filing Petition. Court Holds That Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Requires Prior Invocation of Arbitration or Demonstrated Intention to Arbitrate.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 131
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sarthak Developers, filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim relief against the respondent cooperative housing society and its members. The dispute arose from a redevelopment agreement where the petitioner was appointed as developer. The petitioner paid Rs. 3 crores to the original developer for conveyance of the property to the society. However, the society allegedly failed to cooperate, leading to the petition. The court examined whether the petition was maintainable without prior invocation of the arbitration clause. The court noted that the arbitration clause existed in the agreement but the petitioner had not invoked it before approaching the court. Relying on the principle that Section 9 is an adjunct to arbitration, the court held that a party must at least demonstrate an intention to arbitrate. Since the petitioner did not invoke arbitration or show any steps towards it, the petition was dismissed as premature. The court also observed that the petitioner had other remedies available under the Cooperative Societies Act. The decision was in favor of the respondents.

Headnote

A) Arbitration Law - Interim Measures - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Maintainability - The petitioner, a developer, sought interim relief under Section 9 without first invoking the arbitration clause in the redevelopment agreement. The court held that a Section 9 petition is maintainable only if arbitration is invoked or at least contemplated, and the party must demonstrate an intention to arbitrate. Since the petitioner failed to invoke arbitration before filing the petition, the petition was dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable when the arbitration clause has not been invoked prior to filing the petition.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The court held that a Section 9 petition requires prior invocation of arbitration or at least a demonstrated intention to arbitrate. Since the petitioner failed to invoke the arbitration clause before filing the petition, the petition is dismissed.

Law Points

  • Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
  • 1996
  • pre-arbitration interim relief
  • existence of arbitration clause
  • maintainability of Section 9 petition without prior invocation of arbitration
  • redevelopment agreement
  • cooperative society
  • developer's rights
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (04) 46

Arbitration Petition No. 1385 of 2010

2012-04-04

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

Mr. Mukesh M. Vashi a/w Mr. Abhishek Bharti a/w Ms. Prachi Khandge i/by M/s. M.P. Vashi & Associates for the Petitioner, Mr. Sean Wassoodew for Respondent No.1, Mr. Firoz Bharucha i/by Ms. Sunita Sonawane for Respondent No.2, Mr. B. Unnikrishnan for Respondent Nos. 3,4,7,8,11,12,18 and 19, Ms. Asha Bhambwani for Respondent No.6

Sarthak Developers

Bank of India Amrut Tara Staff Coop. Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim relief in a redevelopment dispute.

Remedy Sought

The petitioner developer sought interim relief against the respondent society and its members to protect its rights under the redevelopment agreement.

Filing Reason

The petitioner alleged that the respondent society failed to cooperate in the redevelopment process despite the petitioner having paid Rs. 3 crores for conveyance.

Issues

Whether the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable without prior invocation of the arbitration clause.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioner argued that there is an arbitration clause in the redevelopment agreement and sought interim relief under Section 9. The respondents contended that the petition is not maintainable as the arbitration clause has not been invoked.

Ratio Decidendi

A petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is maintainable only if the arbitration clause has been invoked or the party demonstrates an intention to arbitrate. Without such invocation, the petition is premature and not maintainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The Petitionerdeveloper, has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in view of existence of Arbitration clause between the parties in the redevelopment agreement. The court held that a Section 9 petition is maintainable only if arbitration is invoked or at least contemplated.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed Arbitration Petition No. 1385 of 2010 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The respondents opposed the petition on the ground of maintainability. The court reserved judgment on 13 March 2012 and pronounced it on 4 April 2012.

Acts & Sections

  • Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Customs Seizure and Bank Guarantee Demand in Roasted Arecanuts Import. FSSAI No Objection Certificate Under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 Held Binding on Customs Authorities Despite Tariff Classification Dispute.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition Against Excessive Interest Charged Under Section 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961 Beyond Settlement Commission Order Date. Interest under Section 234B cannot be charged beyond the date of the Settlement Commis...