Case Note & Summary
The matter came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its Ordinary Civil Jurisdiction as an arbitration application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The applicants, described as developers, sought appointment of an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a registered Development Agreement dated 12 November 2007. The respondents included owners of the land, a subsequent assignee, a construction company, tenants' association, and other individuals. According to the applicants, the original owners had appointed them as developers after earlier developers failed. An Assignment of Development Rights was executed and registered on 12 November 2007, with respondent no.2 as assignor and respondent nos.3 and 4 as confirming parties, in favour of the applicants. The agreement provided for permanent alternate accommodation to tenants, consideration of Rs.5.5 crore to owners, and an arbitration clause in clause 39. The applicants claimed they obtained initial IOD in 2008 but faced delays due to tenant non-cooperation and later policy changes such as fungible FSI and TDR restrictions. They obtained revised permissions between 2021 and 2023. In August 2015, the applicants learned that respondents 3 and 4 had entered into a Memorandum of Agreed Terms with M/s Converge Realtors proposing to give development rights to that entity, subject to settling with the applicants. Respondents 3 and 4 issued a termination notice dated 18 December 2015 to the applicants. The applicants replied denying fault and attributing delay to respondents' non-performance. Efforts at settlement led to a payment of Rs.10 lakh by applicant no.1 to respondents 3 and 4 as a show of bona fides. However, disputes continued. The old building was classified C-1 category by the Technical Advisory Committee of MCGM and directed to be vacated. Thereafter, on 13 August 2024, respondents 2 to 4 executed a Deed of Assignment in favour of respondent no.1, assigning all rights in the petition property. The applicants also referred to a proposal submitted by respondent no.1 on the Auto DCR website, indicating the dispute over development rights remained live. The applicants invoked the arbitration clause and approached the court. The judgment text provided ends mid-narrative, without recording the court's analysis, findings, or final order. Consequently, the specific legal issues framed by the court, the submissions of the parties beyond the factual background, and the final decision are not available in the extracted material. The court had reserved judgment on September 2, 2026, and pronounced it on September 7, 2026, but the operative part is not included.
Issue of Consideration
ARBITRATION APPLICATION (L) NO.27816 OF 2026
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (09) 2
Arbitration Application (L) No.27816 of 2026
Mr. Dinyar Madon, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aadil Parsurampuria, Ms. Kejeshri Thakkar, and Mr. Aaman Jhaveti i/by Mr. Prashant Parsurampuria for the Applicants; Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sutapa Saha for Respondent No.1; Mr. Karl Tamboly i/by Mr. Ketan Dhavle for Respondent Nos.3 and 4; Mr. Yash Tiwari for Respondent No.5; Ms. Pooja Yadav i/by Komal Punjabi for Respondent Nos.8 and 9
1. Shree Satguru Developers, 2. Umesh Pravinchandra Bhatt, 3. Mohd. Zahid Abdul Samad Mukhi
1. Chandrashekhar Champalal Hingarh, 2. Geeta Construction Company, 3. Puranchandra Harendra Kanani, 4. Geeta Kanani, 5. Tenants Association of Mangla Bhuvan, 6. Arvind Jayanti Ajugia, 7. Jayanti G. Ajugia
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Arbitration application under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of an arbitrator for disputes arising from a registered Development Agreement dated 12 November 2007.
Remedy Sought
Applicants (developers) sought appointment of an arbitrator to refer disputes with respondents to arbitration.
Filing Reason
Disputes arose between developers and owners/assignee regarding development rights and termination of Assignment of Development Rights.
Previous Decisions
No previous court decisions mentioned; the tenants' commercial suit was settled by consent terms; the applicant's reply to termination notice was made but no adjudication before this application.
Judgment Excerpts
The present Application has been filed by the Applicants seeking appointment of an Arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Clause 39 contained the Arbitration Agreement.
On 13 August 2024, Respondent Nos.2 to 4 executed a Deed of Assignment in favour of Respondent No.1.
Procedural History
Applicants filed arbitration application under Section 11 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking appointment of arbitrator. The underlying disputes arose from a registered Development Agreement dated 12 November 2007. The applicants, as developers, had an Assignment of Development Rights executed by respondent no.2 with respondent nos.3 and 4 as confirming parties. On 18 December 2015, respondent nos.3 and 4 issued a termination notice. Applicants replied on 16 January 2016. Settlement discussions led to a payment of Rs.10 lakh by applicant no.1. Later, on 13 August 2024, respondents 2 to 4 executed a Deed of Assignment in favour of respondent no.1. Tenants had filed Commercial Suit (L) No.29492 of 2023, which was settled by consent terms. The matter was reserved on September 2, 2026 and pronounced on September 7, 2026, but the operative part is not included in the provided text.
Acts & Sections
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 11
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888: Section 353(B)
