Bombay High Court
Mishal Constructions Private Limited vs Krishin Co Operative Housing Society ... on 4 December, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:23372
F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 16079 OF 2025
Mishal Constructions Private Limited ...Petitioner
Digitally
signed by
SHRADDHA
SHRADDHA KAMLESH
Versus
KAMLESH TALEKAR
TALEKAR Date:
2025.12.04
15:23:08
+0530
Krishin Co-Operative Housing Society Limited ...Respondent
Mr. Rohan Sawant a/w Vatsal Gosalia, i/b Chandresh Rao for the
Petitioner-Developer.
Ms. Jennifer Michael a/w Sumeet Tirthani i/b Dhiren H. Shah for
Respondent-Society.
CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
RESERVED ON: December 1, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON: December 4, 2025
JUDGEMENT:
Context and Factual Background:
1. This is a Petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ("the Act") challenging an order dated March 20, 2025 passed by a Learned Arbitral Tribunal (" Impugned Order") under Section 17 of the Act.
2. The Impugned Order disposes of applications filed under Section 17 by each of the Petitioner, Mishal Constructions Private Page 1 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc Limited ("Developer") and the Respondent, Krishin Co-Operative Housing Society Limited ("Society"). The Society and the Developer had executed a Development Agreement dated November 8, 2010 ("Development Agreement") pursuant to which, a building belonging to the Society was meant to be redeveloped by the Developer into a building comprising ten floors. On December 2, 2013 the Development Agreement was sought to be amended by a Supplemental Development Agreement ("First Supplemental DA"). On November 30, 2015, the Petitioner obtained the Intimation of Disapproval (" IOD") along with sanctioned plans up to the third floor. Six years since the execution of the Development Agreement, considering the state of redevelopment, the parties executed another Supplemental Agreement on January 12, 2016 ("Second Supplemental DA").
3. In February 2016, the building was vacated by the members of the Society and the premises were handed over to the Petitioner for redevelopment. On May 19, 2016, Commencement Certificate was obtained and the redevelopment work started.
4. As of now, the bare structure of eight out of ten floors has been constructed. Work is at a standstill. It is common ground that the transit rent payable to the members of the Society has not been paid Page 2 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc since 2017. Disputes and differences erupted between the parties, which led to Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 671 of 2021 being filed in this Court and the eventual commencement of arbitration proceedings.
Each side filed its own Application under Section 17 of the Act. On May 23, 2024, the Society terminated the Development Agreement and connected agreements citing default by the Developer.
5. The Petitioner sought protection from termination of the Development Agreement and the removal of any material and the provision of the bank guarantee to the tune of Rs.8.7 crores by the Society.
6. The Society sought protection in the form of deposit of the amount owed under the Development Agreement by the Developer to the Society and protection from interference with the development by the Society of the premises, on its own.
7. Mid-course, the Developer stopped attending the proceedings despite repeated intimations to participate. The Society was represented before the Learned Arbitral Tribunal. It is stated by the Developer that there was a change of Advocates and it is common ground that the earlier Advocates withdrew from the proceedings owing to lack of instructions from the Developer.
Page 3 of 23
December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc Impugned Order:
8. Eventually, the Section 17 Application of the Developer was rejected while the Section 17 Application of the Society was allowed by directing that the Developer must vacate and remove all articles and belongings from the premises, and must pay over a sum of Rs.3 crores towards arrears of transit rent to the Society.
9. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal also directed disclosures of all assets, movable and immovable belonging to the Developer and to its directors, within a period of three weeks and to make payments of all arrears of taxes and outgoings in respect of the property until May 23, 2024, the date on which the Development Agreement was terminated by the Society.
Contentions of the Parties:
10. Mr. Rohan Sawant, Learned Advocate on behalf of the Developer would submit that Developer has hitherto undertaken various expenditures for construction of the eight floors that is standing on the Society's land. He would submit that a sum of nearly Rs.2 crores has been paid to the municipal authorities on various counts. He would then submit that the arbitrator has granted the sum claimed in Exhibit Page 4 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc 'X' in the Society's Section 17 Application, without an assessment of damages while the Developer has indeed paid Rs. 2.83 crores to all the members of the Society and the further outstanding amount computed termination ought to be only to the extent of Rs.2.93 cores. Mr. Sawant would submit that the escalated transit rent amount contracted under the First Supplemental DA and the Second Supplemental DA should not be counted since these agreements are not stamped and registered. He would submit that the aggregate transit rent without factoring in the escalations, would stand at Rs.1.85 crores while Rs.2.83 crores has been paid.
11. Mr. Sawant would submit that the direction to pay the transit rent arrears constitutes the grant of damages and is a measure of such final certitude that it could not be regarded as an interlocutory protective measure. Mr. Sawant would also submit that the grant of prayer (d) of the Statement of Claim renders the Impugned Order perverse and tantamount to passing of an interim award in the garb of a Section 17 order. To render an interim award, evidence would need to be seen whereas to render a Section 17 order, a prima facie case would need to be assessed. Mr. Sawant would submit that the pleadings in the Section 17 Applications filed by the Society referred to a higher sum as transit rent in arrears, while the Statement of Claim had a lower sum. Page 5 of 23
December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc The Learned Arbitral Tribunal has simply considered the lesser figure from the Statement of Claim and granted the same without any concrete proof with respect to the quantum of the liability in terms of the transit rent arrears.
12. Mr. Sawant would also point to the untenable nature of the direction to directors to disclose their assets despite the Developer being a limited liability company and there being no possibility of a potential liability on directors. The directors are not even party to the arbitration proceedings, he would submit.
13. Mr. Sawant would also submit the building is complete for a substantial portion of up to eight floors out of the proposed ten floors and the expenses incurred by the Developer to the extent of Rs.8.7 crores of which Rs.2 crores has been paid to Municipal authorities. These are real expenses which the Developer would be entitled to recover from the Society in the nature of benefits that have to be returned by a party rescinding a contract in terms of Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 read with Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The Impugned Order makes no adjustment to preserve and secure the competing interest of the Developer. Page 6 of 23
December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc
14. Mr. Sawant would rely on Muralidhar Chatterji v. International Film Company Ltd. 1 to submit that the reference to the term "voidable" in Section 64 of the Contract Act is essentially meant to cover any contract that is rescinded and not necessarily a contract that is voidable by reason of it being enforceable at the instance of a counter party. He would also rely upon a decision by a Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Vijay Shukla And Anr. v. Career Launcher Infrastructure Private Limited And Ors. 2 to point to how an interim order cannot partake the character of a final judgement, without appropriate adjudication of issues involved - a direction to jointly and severally pay certain amounts without fixation of liability was struck down by the Delhi High Court. He would point to a Special Leave Petition challenging the said judgment being dismissed without granting leave to appeal to indicate that the law declared in Vijay Shukla is good law and ought to have been followed by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal.
15. He would also point to another decision by a Learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Piramal Healthcare Limited v. Union of India and Anr.3 to contend that even if a party is in default of a 1 2 CAL 213 2 (2021) 4 HCC (Del) 72 : 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5176 3 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2357 : (2013) 202 DLT 15 Page 7 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc contract, upon recission of such contract, the benefits earned from such party has to be returned to the party allegedly in default and the counterparty has the burden of proving damages before any amount is paid.
16. Moreover, Mr. Sawant would submit that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has inflicted serious injury on the Developer by not only ousting him from the property but also directing him to pay over the amount which is unprecedented as an interim measure. To adjust equities, the amount could have been asked to be deposited while the Developer need not have been ousted from the property of the society. Both measures, namely, ousting the Developer by handing over the property back to the Society as well as asking for payment of the rent arrears to be made over to the Society rather than be deposited despite a counter claim being pending, clearly constitutes an outright rendering of an interim award without any adjudication that would be essential for rendering an arbitral award.
17. In sharp contrast, Ms. Jennifer Michael, Learned Advocate on behalf of the Society, would submit that evidently the Petition contains multiple challenges raising multiple grounds, but the grievances and grounds pressed into service, relate primarily to the Page 8 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc direction to the Developer to pay over the contracted and crystallized amounts of transit rent in arrears until termination of the Development Agreement. At the threshold, she would submit that the disclosure of assets directed against the directors of the Developers may be given a go-by. She would submit that the direction to pay arrears of transit rent is a valid exercise of power to grant interim relief of a crystallised and obvious sum in terms of the contract. She would point to a judgment by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Mann Housing Development And Ors. v. Paarijat Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. 4 in which upholding an arbitral award, a Learned Single Judge of this Court has explicitly held that until the developed property is handed back, the members of the Society are forced to live in transit accommodation and to expend monies for renting or licensing such premises in different parts of the cities.
18. Ms. Michael would submit that so long as the Learned Arbitral Tribunal's views are reasonable and plausible as an interim measure, this Court ought not to interfere with the Impugned Order and substitute a plausible view with another plausible view. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal, she would submit, has been conservative in directing the interim payment of an admitted amount, and that too, solely until 4 CARBP 18 of 2020 dated February 27, 2020.
Page 9 of 23
December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc the date of termination despite it being within the power of the Learned Arbitral Tribunal to recognize that the entitlement of the Society would be to receive monies towards transit rent until such time the Developer actually hands back possession of the property to the Society. She would submit that, even applying the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") where there is an evidently admitted and contracted debt, a direction to pay can be made as an interlocutory measure.
Analysis and Findings:
19. Having heard the parties and perused the material on record, it is clear that the two prime grievances raised on behalf of the Developer are: (i) the direction to directors of the Developer to disclose their personal assets; and (ii) the direction to pay over the transit rent arrears to the Society.
20. It is evident from the material on record that after the initial participation with pleadings being completed, the Developer went missing from the arbitral proceedings. The Advocates who were representing the Developer submitted that they had no instructions on the conduct of the proceedings. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal was Page 10 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc faced with a Section 17 Application from each party and was deprived of assistance from the Developer's side.
21. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal noted that after a RCC structure of some floors were erected, the project has been stalled without any work being done. The IOD too had been obtained belatedly and the deadline for redevelopment was not just missed, but had become meaningless. While the deadline was of 26 months with a three-month extension, over six years had passed and nothing concrete had been done, with the building demolished, work incomplete, and even the transit rent not being paid to the members of the Society. No agreement for permanent alternate accommodation was executed, transit rent was in arrears, property taxes were not paid, and the property is facing the risk of attachment for non-payment of municipal taxes. Cheques issued by the Developer were dishonoured. In February 2020, the Developer wrote to the Society that work would commence and conclude by end of 2020 but nothing of that sort took place.
22. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal, noticing the severe breaches, examined the interlocutory arrangements made by this Court in the course of the Section 9 proceedings, and yet nothing had been done by the Developer in discharging its obligations. Taking this factual matrix Page 11 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc into account, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has prima facie found that the termination of the Development Agreement was valid and just.
Despite a written notice of termination dated May 23, 2024, there was no response from the Developer. Six members of the Society had expired when waiting for the new houses and there has been no measure of progress. It is in this context that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal had to consider an appropriate interlocutory arrangement.
23. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal noticed the pleadings filed by the Developer and found that apart from a bald denial there had been nothing to indicate what according to the Developer was the transit rent payable until termination. Examining the Developer's Section 17 Application and the defence to the Society's Section 17 Application, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal found that the change of legal regime and the Covid-19 Pandemic are cited by the Developer for the non-performance of the Development Agreement. Holding that the Developer had prima facie disentitled itself for grant of interlocutory relief, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal went on to examine what would best serve the arbitration.
24. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal has taken a view that even assuming that the sum of Rs. 8.7 crores had been incurred by the Page 12 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc Developer between 2010 and 2023, there is not even a modicum of substantiation in the material brought on record. No Statement of Defence or Counter-Claim of the Developer backed by any credible material was filed after the Section 17 Application was filed. In my opinion, even if the RCC structure of eight floors stands on the property today, indeed unattended to for years, it may be of little use and in fact further expense may have to be incurred to strengthen it or to bring it down afresh. This is for consideration at the stage of final hearing. The short point is that the expenditure incurred on the structure, by itself, does not tilt the scales in a manner any different from how the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has appreciated the situation.
25. Holding that the default in payment of transit rent being a fundamental and material breach of the Development Agreement, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has given detailed consideration to the situation and returned a prima facie view that the subject matter of the arbitration i.e. the redevelopment was in an abject state and needed to be protected by permitting the Society to take over, having waited nearly a decade and half. I am unable to find fault with this appreciation of the situation. While the Developer may have incurred expense in the work done so far, its defaults evidently outweigh in the assessment scale. Page 13 of 23
December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc
26. Having anxiously and carefully examined the Impugned Order with close attention to the material on record, I am afraid no case has been made out by the Developer to find fault with the Learned Arbitral Tribunal's approach and content of its analysis. The short point to consider is that whether the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has erred by getting provoked by the manner of conduct by the Developer before the Learned Arbitral Tribunal. I find that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has, despite having no assistance from one side, taken the trouble of examining the record closely to return reasonable and well-reasoned findings.
27. The delay and defaults in effecting the redevelopment are attributed by the Developer to change in legal regime, namely, the introduction of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; the introduction of Goods and Services Tax; and the financial crunch faced by the Developer, leading even to its own offices being sealed and attached owing to non-payments of certain dues and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. These are not reasons that inspire confidence for the prolonged and sustained default. The Society is indeed in an extremely vulnerable state and deserves protection. Page 14 of 23
December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc
28. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal has carefully dealt with readiness and willingness, or rather the absence of it, on the part of the Developer. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal has closely analysed various development-related case law and returned a just and fair finding that the termination by the Society was a valid one, backed by precedent and the law declared by this Court. The wait that the Society and its members had already been subjected to, and the interminable further wait that would be occasioned has convinced the Learned Arbitral Tribunal that the interim arrangement ought to protect the subject matter of the proceedings and the Society from further damage. Once the termination is prima facie held to be valid (a finding I have to agree with), the only issue to examine is whether the framework put in place is violative of law.
29. The Developer could indeed be compensated by award of damages should the Developer make out such a case in the course of the proceedings. The Society has already suffered for very long and it is time for them to be able to determine the future of the redevelopment. Not only has the redevelopment not been conducted, even the transit rent is not paid and is in material arrears. Therefore, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal's finding that the property be handed over to the Page 15 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc Society leaving it open to the Developer to prove his case for damages, is a reasonable and fair decision.
30. As regards the transit rent, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has taken care to provide for just the contracted sum of transit rent and that too only until the date of the termination. This approach is a fair and balanced one. Indeed, the Society's members are entitled to transit rent until the occupation certificate is handed over to them - they are fending for themselves and their shelter in a rent market that is also priced on the basis of the robust redevelopment in the city having its own impact on rent prices. Therefore, without extending for any period beyond the termination date, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has adopted the crystallised quantum and asked for it to be paid over.
31. I am not convinced by Mr. Sawant's contention that such an amount could be asked to be deposited but asking for it to be paid over is in the nature of an interim award. This is for multiple reasons. When directing an interlocutory arrangement, the scales have to be balanced to see how best to turn the needle to bring equilibrium between the parties. The scales are weighed so heavily against the Developer that there was hardly anything to adjust for on the crystallised liability. The escalated transit rent was contracted. The obligation to pay stamp duty Page 16 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc and register was on the Developer, and the Developer cannot benefit from its own non-compliance by claiming that the supplemental agreements executed by it are not binding because the Developer defaulted in having them stamped and registered.
32. That apart, the law on interlocutory reliefs under Section 9 being wider and not being hidebound by Order XXXVIII of CPC has been well articulated and is no longer a matter of controversy, as rightly noted by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal, in particular, relying on the law declared in Jagdish Ahuja5, Valentine Maritime6 and Arcelor Mittal7, to name a few relevant precedents. The finding that the Developer has not made out any material defence cannot be faulted.
33. Indeed, Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Section 30 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, pressed into service by Mr. Sawant, provide that when a party rescinds a voidable contract, any benefit received from another party to the contract must be restored. However, it cannot be said that the expenses incurred by the Developer automatically constitute a benefit to the Society. The defaults of the Developer lead to the expenses incurred by him, at least prima facie, not 5 Jagdish Ahuja & Anr. Vs. Cupino Ltd. - (2020) 4 BOM CR 1 6 Valentine Maritime LTd. Vs. Kruez Subsea Pte. Ltd. - MANU/MH/0062/2021 7 Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel (India) Ltd. vs. Essar Bulk Terminal Ltd. - (2021) SCC OnLine Supreme Court 718 Page 17 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc translating into any benefit to the Society. That apart, when Mr. Sawant contended that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal ought to have considered a deposit rather than pay over, he was asked to take instructions on whether the Developer would make a deposit of the amount involved instead of it being paid over. Upon seeking instructions, he would submit that the Developer is not in a position to commit to making a deposit either. Therefore, evidently, the argumentation is an academic one.
34. Regardless, the validity of the Impugned Order is not in doubt. What the Learned Arbitral Tribunal had on hand was a case of an abject default on the Developer's part. There is a contracted sum of transit rent that is to be paid. Whether it has to be paid is not to be proved. This is a contracted price and a consideration of the development. There is no further proof required for assessing its payment in the form of assessment of damages. I am not convinced that such crystallised, contracted sum could be treated as damages for the Learned Arbitral Tribunal to have had to wait for evidence to be led and that too by a party that has not even filed a Statement of Defence or Counter-Claim. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal has righty taken a position on the specific crystallised sum, taking care to cut off the transit rent period until termination of the Development Agreement. The Page 18 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc termination itself went without response from the Developer. There is nothing inequitable or illegal in the Impugned Order to warrant interference in the facts of this case.
35. A counter-claim, as rightly pointed out by Ms. Michael would have no relevance for payment of a contractually crystallised sum. The amount of transit rent in arrears is purely a mathematical computation. Indeed, there were multiple letters written by the Society to the Developer even before the litigation, in particular, letters dated September 6, 2017 and April 11, 2019 specifically on the question of arrears of transit rent. According to Ms. Micheal, the Developer has simply adopted the approach of stating "yes we are in arrears but your calculation is wrong". Such a position continuing nearly for a decade is untenable to treat the transit rent directed to be paid as constituting a grant of damages at an interlocutory stage.
36. The reliance on the judgement of a Learned Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in the case of Numero Uno8 which essentially holds that the mere pendency of the counter claim before the arbitrator would not be sufficient to disentitle the counter party from claiming an admitted liability, is apt. Indeed, Numero Uno was a case of an interim award and not an interim order, but it is cited purely to indicate the 8 Numero Uno International Ltd. v. Prasar Bharti - 2008 (101) DRJ 479 (DB) Page 19 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc conceptual underlying principle and indeed the application to the facts of the instant case where in fact, no statement or defence or counterclaim was even filed, despite the protestations about a counter- claim being possible, in the course of the hearing of this Petition.
37. In the facts of the case, the Impugned Order notes that no counter-claim has even been filed. The transit rent in arrears is evidently capable of computation. In fact, the liability to pay transit rent could be claimed to continue until the premises are handed over. That can be assessed during the final hearing. At this stage, taking care to truncate the period for computation of the transit rent until the termination date, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has issued a reasonable and balanced direction that in my opinion, does not lend itself to interference.
38. The Society seeking to take over the project and effect the redevelopment is a mitigating measure that it is entitled to seek and the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has rightly granted it. I find no fault in the Impugned Order directing possession to be handed back. In fact, after two rounds of hearing, the Developer gave instructions to his advocates that possession would be handed back to the Society in compliance with the Impugned Order. The sole issue left therefore is about payment Page 20 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc being directed to be made over to the Society as opposed to being directed to be deposited. The Developer has expressed inability or unwillingness to make the deposit either. Regardless, the direction to pay over the same, for the reasons set out above, cannot be faulted.
39. Finally, the Developer is indeed a company with limited liability. The dispute under arbitration is a dispute over a contract covered by an arbitration agreement. At the threshold, it would not be possible to rope in outsiders to the arbitration agreement into the ambit and scope of the proceedings. It is possible that persons who are non- signatories could be held to be veritable parties based on commonality of subject, control and management. However, at this stage, with nothing to indicate why the Learned Arbitral Tribunal was desirous of directing a disclosure by the directors, it is not clear as to how and why the Learned Arbitral Tribunal issued such a direction to the directors.
40. Taking on board, Ms. Michael's fair concession that the disclosures by the directors need not be made, the direction of disclosure in the Impugned Order, insofar as it relates to the directors of the Developer is stayed. I see no reason to interfere with the directions to disclose made against the Developer. If and when evidence in the matter leads to discovery of any material such as movement of funds Page 21 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc from the Developer to the directors and promoters, the parties shall have liberty to address the Learned Arbitral Tribunal on the need to treat the directors or promoters of the Developer as veritable parties. However, at this stage, considering the submission by Ms. Michael, this objection need not detain any further attention. No interference is necessary in relation to the direction to the Developer to make disclosures. The direction to the directors to disclose their personal assets is stayed, without prejudice to the ability to make out a case at a later stage about the need to make the directors a party.
41. Finding nothing perverse in the Impugned Order, I find no reason to interfere, also bearing in mind that the order is an interlocutory measure where it is not open to the Section 37 Court to interfere without a case of perversity in the interlocutory measure being made out.
42. If possession of the property has actually been handed over as committed to this Court, the Developer shall have liberty to provide an actual computation of the transit rent arrears to the Learned Arbitral Tribunal on the basis of the contracted escalated rates, without diluting the arrears amount on the basis of his claim that the supplemental agreements not being registered, the escalation contracted must not be Page 22 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 ::: F-J-901-CARBPL-16079-2025.doc counted. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal shall consider any computational error that may be pointed out.
43. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court's website.
[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] Page 23 of 23 December 4, 2025 Ashwini Vallakati ::: Uploaded on - 04/12/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 06/12/2025 00:14:33 :::