Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Prajita Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal against an order dated 14.01.2016 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court dismissing their petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The appellants had sought an injunction restraining Respondent No.1, Yusuf Khan alias Dilip Kumar, from dispossessing them from a property admeasuring 2,056 sq.mtrs. located at Pali Hill Estate, Bandra (East), Mumbai. The property was subject to a Development Agreement dated 23.06.2006 executed between Respondent No.1, M/s. Sharyans Resources Limited, and Respondent No.2, M/s. Gold Beam Construction Pvt. Ltd. Under the agreement, Respondent No.1 granted development rights for a consideration of Rs.10 crores, and the developers paid Rs.4 crores. The appellants claimed to have acquired rights from the original developers. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Section 9 petition, finding no prima facie case in favor of the appellants. The Division Bench, in the present appeal, upheld the Single Judge's order, noting that the development agreement did not confer possession on the appellants and that the appellants failed to demonstrate any legal right to possession. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, confirming that the appellants were not entitled to interim relief.
Headnote
A) Arbitration - Interim Relief - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Prima Facie Case - The appellants sought injunction against dispossession from property under a development agreement - The court held that the appellants failed to establish a prima facie case as the development agreement did not grant possession and the appellants were not in lawful possession - Held that the learned Single Judge correctly dismissed the petition (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are entitled to an interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 restraining the respondent from dispossessing them from the property pending arbitration.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The impugned order dated 14.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld.
Law Points
- Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Interim injunction
- Development agreement
- Possession
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 78
Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 74 of 2016 in Arbitration Petition No. 829 of 2015 with Notice of Motion (L) No. 583 of 2016
Anoop V. Mohta, G. S. Kulkarni
Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate with Mr. Zal Andhyarujina with Arup Dasgupta, Ms. Shruti Sardesai Mr. Nirav Merchant and Ms. Deepika Sekar i/b. Jhangiani Narula & Associates for the appellants. Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr.Chirag Shah and Parag Shah i/b. M/s. Mahesh Shah & Co. for respondent No.1. Mr.N.H.Seervai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rahul Chitnis i/b. Akshay Shah for respondent No.2
Prajita Developers Pvt.Ltd.
Yusuf Khan alias Dilip Kumar, M/s. Gold Beam Construction Pvt. Limited
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against dismissal of Section 9 petition seeking interim injunction in an arbitration matter.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought injunction restraining Respondent No.1 from dispossessing them from the property.
Filing Reason
Appellants claimed rights under a development agreement and sought protection of possession pending arbitration.
Previous Decisions
Learned Single Judge dismissed the Section 9 petition on 14.01.2016.
Issues
Whether the appellants have a prima facie case for interim injunction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that they were entitled to possession under the development agreement and sought injunction against dispossession.
Respondents contended that the development agreement did not confer possession and the appellants had no legal right.
Ratio Decidendi
The appellants failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as the development agreement did not grant possession and the appellants were not in lawful possession.
Judgment Excerpts
The Appellants (original Petitioners) have challenged the impugned order dated 14.01.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge, thereby the Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is dismissed.
Procedural History
The appellants filed Arbitration Petition No. 829 of 2015 under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim injunction. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 14.01.2016. The appellants then filed the present appeal against that order.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9
