Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parallel economy in Jinam Arihant Realtors vs Neha Yogesh Sachde on 3 February, 2026Matching Fragments
24. On the other hand, this is a classic case where public policy considerations in assessing the Impugned Award have to be very carefully considered with the judgement creditor categorically bringing to bear the manner of conduct of business operations by all the parties concerned -
February 3, 2026 Chaitanya Judgement-ARPL-20865-2023.docx entirely in the parallel economy, off the books of accounts and balance sheet of the firm, with their conversations littered with handling of cash and role of politicians of nearly every prominent political party in Mumbai.
33. The approach adopted appears to have been that once the transcript showed some evidence of any cash dealing among the parties, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal considered it plausible to conclude that Sachde had invested Rs. 48 lakhs in cash in Jinam. To my mind, this is where perversity strikes at the heart of the findings in the Impugned Award.
34. The voices attributed to the partners of Jinam and to Pankaj, would indicate that all parties were willing participants in a throbbing business activity that was entirely conducted off the books in the parallel economy. The very transcripts of the conversations sought to be brought on record names multiple politicians of multiple parties. This could be name-dropping to brag about influence wielded. It could even be true. However, how it indicates any reasonable basis to hold that the February 3, 2026 Chaitanya Judgement-ARPL-20865-2023.docx investment of Rs. 60 lakhs stood proved, presents a gaping hole in the Impugned Award.
[Emphasis Supplied]
49. It is with this standard in mind that I have come to the conclusion that the enforcement of transacting the conduct of the business of Jinam, the partnership firm, in cash outside the books of accounts and entirely in the parallel cash economy in black money, is unpardonable perversity under Section 34 of the Act.
50. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the Impugned Award deserves to be set aside and the Petition is allowed. In the circumstances, taking into account the conduct of both parties, no case is made out for award of costs.