The High Court dismissed both petitions filed by Petitioner against Respondents -- The Petitioner sought interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to stay termination of a Development Agreement and injunction against appointing a new developer, and under Section 11 for arbitrator appointment -- The Court found the Petitioner failed to show a prima facie case for interim relief, as the termination was based on the Petitioner's inability to demonstrate financial capacity and advance the redevelopment proposal under Development Control Regulations, 1991 -- The Municipal Corporation's refusal to issue NOC post-termination further weakened the Petitioner's case -- The Court held the arbitration clause did not warrant relief given the circumstances, dismissing both petitions
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 36533 of 2025 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) seeking interim measures -- The Court also dismissed Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No. 37280 of 2025 filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act for appointment of arbitrator -- The Petitioner-Developer, ISON Builders LLP, sought stay on termination notice dated 25 October 2025 issued by Respondent No.1-Society and injunction against appointing another developer -- The Court held that the Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act -- The Court noted that the Development Agreement contained an arbitration clause, but the termination was based on the Petitioner's failure to demonstrate financial capacity and progress the redevelopment -- The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) had refused to issue NOC after termination -- The Court found no merit in the Section 11 application as the disputes were not arbitrable due to the termination being valid -- The judgment was reserved on 13 January 2026 and pronounced on 23 January 2026
The High Court dismissed Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 36533 of 2025 and Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No. 37280 of 2025, denying interim relief and arbitrator appointment
Citation: 2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 78
Case Number: Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 36533 of 2025 with Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No. 37280 of 2025
Date of Decision: 2026-01-23
Case Title: The Issue of Consideration was whether the Petitioner-Developer was entitled to interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to stay termination of the Development Agreement and whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Before Judge: Sandeep V. Marne, J.
Equivalent Citations: 2026:BHC-OS:2073
Advocate(s): Mr. Karl Tamboly with Mr. Rohan Savant, Mr. Chirag Sarawagi, Mr. Yash Sinha i/by. Tushar Goradia for Petitioner-Applicant, Mr. Prateek Seksaria, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rohit Agarwal, Mr. Nishant Chothani, Mr. Yash S. Jain for Respondent Nos.3 to 22, Ms. Pooja Yadav i/b. Ms. Komal Punjabi for MCGM-Respondent No.2, Mr. Santosh Nachnekar, AO, (I/C) Estate Present
Appellant: ISON Builders LLP
Respondent: Om Sai Ram Cooperative Housing Society (Proposed), Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Respondent Nos.3 to 22
Nature of Litigation: Commercial arbitration petitions seeking interim relief and arbitrator appointment in a redevelopment dispute
Remedy Sought: The Petitioner-Developer sought stay on termination notice, injunction against appointing another developer, and appointment of an arbitrator
Filing Reason: Termination of Development Agreement by the Society due to Petitioner's failure to demonstrate financial capacity and progress redevelopment, and Municipal Corporation's refusal to issue NOC
Previous Decisions: Writ Petition No. 3457 of 2025 was disposed of on 23 September 2025, granting liberty to the Petitioner to exercise appropriate remedy
Issues: Whether the Petitioner is entitled to interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to stay termination of the Development Agreement Whether an arbitrator should be appointed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for adjudication of disputes
Submissions/Arguments: Petitioner argued for interim relief based on the arbitration clause and alleged wrongful termination Respondents argued termination was valid due to Petitioner's failure to show financial capacity and advance redevelopment, and Municipal Corporation supported refusal of NOC
Ratio Decidendi: For interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, a prima facie case must be established; the Petitioner failed to do so as termination was based on valid grounds including lack of financial capacity and non-progress of redevelopment -- The arbitration clause did not override the validity of termination and Municipal Corporation's actions
Judgment Excerpts: Petitioner has filed Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No. 36533 of 2025 seeking interim measures under Sections 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 The society issued termination letter to the Petitioner terminating the Development Agreement and Power of Attorney Municipal Corporation passed order dated 30 October 2025 refusing to issue NOC in respect of the redevelopment proposal
Procedural History: Development Agreement executed on 22 December 2014 -- Show cause notice issued on 22 May 2024 -- Termination notice issued on 25 October 2025 -- Municipal Corporation refused NOC on 30 October 2025 -- Petitions filed in 2025 -- Judgment reserved on 13 January 2026 and pronounced on 23 January 2026
