Devidas R Sheregar vs Zeenal Constructions Pvt Ltd

CNR No : HCBM020252702026

2026:BHC-OS:22768-DB
TRUPTI
SADANAND
BAMNE
Digitally signed by
TRUPTI SADANAND
BAMNE
Date: 2026.10.21
14:51:56 +0530
TSB carba(l)-25270-2026.doc19.10.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION APPEAL (L) NO. 25270 OF 2026
IN
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 12193 OF 2026
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
1. Dr. Devidas R. Sheregar
Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,
Partner – M/s. Sanklan Hospital,
Having his permanent address at
201/202, Jupiter B Wing,
Vasant Galaxy, MG Road,
Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 104
2. Dr. Alka Jain,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,
Partner – M/s. Sanklan Hospital,
Having her permanent address at
1902, Angelica, Mahindra
Eminente, S.V. Road, Goregaon (W),
Mumbai 400 104
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
3. Dr. Manoj S. Aithal,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,
Partner – M/s. Sanklan Hospital,
Having his permanent address at
801 A, Mahindra Eminente,
S.V. Road, Goregaon (W),
Mumbai 400 104
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
4. Dr. Suresh Shetty,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,
Partner- M/s. Sanklan Hospital,
Having his permanent address at
1205, Silver Arch Building, Shastri
Nagar, Lokhandwala, Andheri (W),
Mumbai 400 053
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
5. Dr. Shishir Shetty,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,
Partners- M/s. Sanklan Hospital,
Having his permanent address at
1201, Progressive Highness,
]
]
]
]
]
1/7
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:13:40

TSB carba(l)-25270-2026.doc19.10.doc

Sector 16A , Sanpada, ]
Navi Mumbai – 400 705 ] …. Appellants
V/s.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
1. Zeenal Constructions Pvt. Ltd.,
A Company registered under The
Companies Act 1956, having its
Registered address at Shop No.6,
Saurabh Apartment, Shahaji Raje
Marg, Vile Parle (E),
Mumbai 400 057
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
2. Prakash Barot,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai
Director of the Respondent No.1,
Having his office at Shop No.6,
Saurabh Apartment, Shahaji Raje
Marg, Vile Parle (E),
Mumbai 400 057
3. Jayantilal Kewal Chand,
803, Teejadeep Tower, Khima Lane,
Jambhli Naka, Thane West,
Mumbai 400 012
]
]
]
]
4. Dhanesh Kantilal Tejawat,
A/1301, Shanti Kamal,
Dr. B.A.Road,
Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 012
]
]
]
]
5. Babulal Devraj Jain,
A/1602, Royal Residency, Chiwda
Gali, Lalbaug, Mumbai 400 012
]
]
]
6. Sadashiv Pranavshankar Dave,
Adult, Having their address at Dave
Estate, S.V. Road, Goregaon (W),
Mumbai 400 104.
]
]
]
] … Respondents

Mr. Bahraiz Irani a/w. Mr. Amit Padwal, Mr. Anosh Irani and Mr. Afrin Dalal
for the Appellants.
Mr. Gaurav Mehta a/w. Mr. Sahil Wagh i/b. DM Legal Associates for
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
2/7
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:13:40

TSB carba(l)-25270-2026.doc19.10.doc

Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w. Mr. Y.S.Shukla for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
st
RESERVED ON : 1 October, 2026.
st
PRONOUNCED ON : 21 October, 2026.
Judgment (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
1) The Appellants, the Original Petitioners, have filed the present
Appeal, being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order
th
dated 19 June, 2026, passed by learned Single Judge, whereby dismissing
the Appellants’ Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation
Act, 1996 (for short, the “Arbitration Act”), seeking urgent ad-interim reliefs
for the appointment of the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay, in respect
of the piece and parcel of land known as Dave’s Estate admeasuring
approximately 1405 square yards, situated at S.V. Road, Goregaon (W),
Mumbai, and for consequential reliefs, restraining the creation of third
party rights, title and interest in or dealing with, the said property to the
prejudice of the Appellants’ contractual and arbitrary rights.
2) We have heard Mr. Bahraiz Irani, learned Advocate for the
Appellants; Mr. Gaurav Mehta, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and
2; and Mr. Aseem Naphade, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6.
3) Having perused the Impugned Order, we find that it deserves to
be set aside for the following reasons:
3/7
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:13:40

TSB carba(l)-25270-2026.doc19.10.doc

(i) It is an undisputed fact that the Respondents had received an
amount of Rs. 60 lakhs under the Memorandum of Understanding
th
(MoU) dated 27 June, 2005. The said amounts have neither been
returned nor have the Respondents delivered the commercial
premises admeasuring 4360 square feet that were to be
constructed in the Krishna Ambika Arcade on the subject plot. The
delivery of these premises was to be made within 24 months from
the receipt of an IOD or within such time as may be mutually
agreed. Admittedly, the Respondents have failed to obtain the IOD
for the subject project. Hence, limitation is not an issue.
(ii) It is not in dispute that the Respondents are attempting to
transfer the rights in the plot in favour of some other third party.
Although the Appellants would not have direct rights over the
subject plot on which the proposed Krishna Ambika Arcade was to
be constructed, they would certainly be entitled to the commercial
premises admeasuring 4360 square feet proposed to be constructed
thereon. Therefore, if the Respondents were to create third party
rights in the land, claim of the Appellants for specific performance
would be entirely frustrated and their only remedy would be to
claim damages.
4) In our view, interim protection contemplated under Section 9 of
4/7
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:13:40

TSB carba(l)-25270-2026.doc19.10.doc

the Arbitration Act is to preserve the subject matter of the dispute between
the parties. In our view, if the land itself is disposed off by the Respondents,
the Appellants would be remediless to the extent of their claim for specific
performance.
5) Perusal of the record indicates that, the Respondents have
attempted to play fraud on the Appellants. They have outrightly cheated the
Appellants. In our view, the Appellants, who are a group of doctors by
profession, had together invested their hard-earned money with the
Respondents, who continue to use the monies of the Appellants interest free
for over 21 years and now claim that the MoU stood terminated or that it
came to an end long ago by the conduct of the parties.
6) Prima facie , it appears to be a bald and baseless contention. At
this stage, the Court need not go into the evidentiary value of this
contention. The Arbitrator has already been appointed and the only
question raised for our consideration is whether the Appellants are entitled
to an injunction preventing the Respondents from creating third party
rights, title and interest in respect of the subject land.
7) Upon a question being posed to learned Advocate Mr. Naphade,
appearing for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6, he explained that, his clients were
negotiating with Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for purchasing development
rights in respect of the subject land/property. In that view, we also
attempted to forge a settlement between the Respondents and the
5/7
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:13:40

TSB carba(l)-25270-2026.doc19.10.doc

Appellants, but the same did not fructify, as the Respondents offered a
paltry amount as against the monies received by them having used it
interest free for over 21 years.
8) Cheating is defined under Sections 215 and 420 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short, “IPC”), which reads as under:
“ 215. Taking gift to help to recover stolen property,
etc.— Whoever takes or agrees or consents to take
any gratification under pretence or on account of
helping any person to recover any movable property
of which he shall have been deprived by any offence
punishable under this Code, shall, unless he uses all
means in his power to cause the offender to be
apprehended and convicted of the offence, be
punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years, or with fine,
or with both.”
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived to deliver any property
to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole
or any part of a valuable security, or anything which
is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.
6/7
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:13:40

TSB carba(l)-25270-2026.doc19.10.doc

9) Considering the aforesaid definitions and facts of the present
case, we are prima facie of the view that the Respondents had all
throughout, since inception, carried an intention to cheat the Appellants.
10) In view of the aforesaid, we allow the Appeal in terms of prayer
clauses (A) to (D).
11) After hearing the matter, although instinctively we were inclined
to suo motu direct the initiation of criminal proceedings against the
Respondents under the powers vested in us under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to meet the ends of justice, we resisted from invoking
the same.
12) We hope that even after this Judgment, all learned Advocates
would attempt to prevail upon the Respondents to settle the dispute with
the Appellants.
(KAMAL KHATA, J.) (A.S. GADKARI, J.)
7/7
Uploaded on - 21/10/2026 Downloaded on - 21/10/2026 15:13:40
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)