Anil Sunder Jhangiani vs Om Sadan Co Operative Housing Society Limited
- Court
- Bombay High Court
CNR No : HCBM020314822026
2026:BHC-OS:23145
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMM ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.31481 OF 2026
Anil Sunder Jhangiani
… Petitioner
Vs.
ATUL
GANESH
KULKARNI
1. Om Sadan Cooperative Housing
Society Limited
Digitally signed
by ATUL
GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.10.26
17:18:28 +0530
2. Polo Infra Developers Private Ltd.
… Respondents
Mr. Shyam Kapadia with Ms. Megha Gupta, Ms.
Khushboo Acharya, and Ms. Lavanita Chityala i/by
Hedgehog & Fox LLP for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho with Ms. Videsha Rohira i/by Ms.
Amrita Lalwani for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Gauraj Shah with Mr. Pratik Jani, and Ms. Princee
Vaishnav i/by Prime Legem for Respondent No.2.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : OCTOBER 21, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : OCTOBER 26, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. The present Petition is filed under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim relief to
protect the Petitioner’s rights in Commercial Unit No. A-1,
comprising the entire ground floor, admeasuring 2,000 sq. ft., in
1
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
Om Sadan CHS, Borivali (West), Mumbai.
2. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the
present Petition are as follows. On 04 April 2026, the Petitioner’s
name was entered in the Society’s Share Certificate and Form “J”,
pursuant to the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar on 19
December 2025, 20 February 2026 and 20 March 2026. The
Petitioner relies upon title documents dating back to 1968 in
support of his claim. He apprehends that the Society and the
Developer are proceeding with the redevelopment by wrongly
describing and dividing the existing premises. The Petitioner states
that notices dated 13 July 2026, 04 August 2026 and 11 August
2026 have been issued calling upon him to hand over possession,
without executing an addendum recording his membership and
the correct area of his premises. He seeks interim directions,
pending arbitration, requiring the Respondents to identify and
earmark his 2,000 sq. ft. commercial unit and the corresponding
premises in the redeveloped building in all plans. He seeks an
order restraining the Respondents from creating third-party rights
in respect of the premises and from imposing the penalty of
₹ 50,000 per day under Clause 15(vii). Further, he seeks directions
to execute and register a Permanent Alternate Accommodation
Agreement (“PAAA”) and an addendum recording his correct
details, to disclose the approved redevelopment plans, and to
make appropriate provision for the existing strong room. He seeks
continuation of transit rent and other benefits on the basis of the
correct area of his premises. In addition, he requests that the
Respondents be restrained from taking coercive steps to compel
2
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
him to vacate the premises until the necessary conditions are
fulfilled and his entitlement is recorded. These reliefs are sought
without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the proposed
arbitration. In these circumstances, the Petitioner has filed the
present Petition.
3. On 12 March 1968, Respondent No. 1 Society issued a Share
Certificate in respect of five A shares relating to the ground-floor
premises. Thereafter, on 18 February 1970, an Indenture was
executed with the State Bank of India, treating the entire ground
floor as one commercial unit. On 03 March 1978, an Agreement
was executed in favour of the Sunder C. Jhangiani Family Trust in
respect of premises admeasuring 2,000 sq. ft. On 01 August 1979,
the Society issued a Transfer of Property Letter acknowledging the
ground-floor premises as measuring 2,000 sq. ft. Subsequently, on
21 February 2002, a Release Deed was executed, under which
rights in the premises were vested in the Petitioner. On 05 March
2013, a notice was issued under Section 162(2) of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, in relation to Assessment Year
2010–2011. The notice recorded the entire ground floor as one
commercial premises assessed as a bank. Thereafter, on 31 January
2020, the Society issued a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and an
ownership and dues certificate in respect of the entire ground-floor
premises.
4. On 29 February 2024, a Registered Deed of Transfer bearing
Registration No. BDR-7-4328-2024 was recorded in favour of the
Petitioner. Thereafter, on 19 June 2024, a Deed of Lease was
executed with the State Bank of India in respect of the said
3
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
premises. On 01 April 2025, the municipal authority issued a
Property Tax Bill, which, according to the Petitioner, supports the
continued existence and municipal recognition of the premises. On
17 October 2025, a Declaration-cum-Ratification was executed
between Mr. Mukesh Sunder Jhangiani and the Petitioner,
confirming and ratifying the transfer or assignment relating to the
five shares and the entire ground-floor commercial premises.
Subsequently, on 19 December 2025, the Deputy Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, passed an order directing Respondent No. 1 to
transfer the membership and shareholding in favour of the
Petitioner. On 20 February 2026, the Deputy Registrar passed an
order under Section 154B-27(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960, directing Respondent No. 1 to implement the
earlier order and enter the Petitioner’s name in the Society’s
records. Thereafter, on 10 March 2026, the Petitioner, through his
Advocates, issued a notice to the Respondents. Among other
issues, the notice raised an objection to the alleged wrongful
division of the existing 2,000 sq. ft. premises in the Development
Agreement and called upon the Respondents to recognise and
protect the Petitioner’s rights. On 20 March 2026, the Deputy
Registrar passed a order appointing or directing an Authorised
Officer to implement the earlier orders and make the necessary
entries in the Society’s records. On 23 March 2026, the Petitioner
issued a detailed legal notice to Respondent No. 2, with a copy
marked to Respondent No. 1. The notice referred to the title
documents, Society records, membership, proceedings and the
Petitioner’s entitlement in the redevelopment. On 25 March 2026,
4
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
Respondent No. 1, through its Advocates, issued a reply denying
that the premises had been wrongly divided. It stated that the
description, area and configuration mentioned in the Development
Agreement were based on the existing records, architectural plans
and feasibility of the development. It stated that these matters
were subject to verification and reconciliation.
5. On 01 April 2026, Respondent No. 2, through its Advocates,
issued a reply calling upon the Petitioner to provide documentary
material relating to his ownership and acquisition of the premises.
On 04 April 2026, pursuant to the statutory orders, the Petitioner’s
name was entered in the Share Certificate and Form “J” of
Respondent No. 1 in respect of the premises. Thereafter, on 16
April 2026, the Petitioner issued a detailed rejoinder to
Respondent No. 2’s reply. In the rejoinder, he addressed the
objections raised by Respondent No. 2 and furnished or referred to
documents in support of his rights and his claim that the entire
ground floor constituted one commercial unit. On 22 May 2026,
the Petitioner sent an email to Respondent No. 2 informing it of
the subsequent statutory developments, the entry of his name in
the Share Certificate and Form “J”, and the withdrawal of the
Society’s challenge. Subsequently, on 25 June 2026, a Withdrawal
Order was passed in Revision Application No. 530 of 2025, which
had been filed by Respondent No. 1 before the Joint Registrar, Co-
operative Societies, Mumbai.
6. On 13 July 2026, Respondent No. 2 issued a notice calling
upon the Petitioner to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of
the premises. Significantly, the notice was addressed in the name
5
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
of the erstwhile Sunder Jhangiani Family Trust, despite the
subsequent developments concerning the Petitioner’s membership.
On 20 July 2026, the Petitioner, through his Advocates, issued a
letter and email reiterating his objections regarding the description
and area of the premises and his entitlement in the redevelopment.
Thereafter, on 11 August 2026, Respondent No. 1 issued another
notice calling upon the concerned parties to vacate and hand over
possession of the premises. This notice referred to the erstwhile
Trust and the Petitioner. It is necessary to note that the Petition
refers to a notice dated 04 August 2026, whereas the notice
annexed to the Petition is identified as dated 11 August 2026. On
24 August 2026, Respondent No. 2 addressed a letter proposing a
joint meeting to discuss the outstanding issues concerning the
Petitioner’s premises and his entitlement in the redevelopment.
Accordingly, on 25 August 2026, an online joint meeting was held
between the Respondents, their Advocate, the Petitioner and his
Advocates to discuss the unresolved disputes. As the issues
concerning the identification and area of the premises, the
Petitioner’s redevelopment entitlement and the proposed handing
over of possession remained unresolved, the Petitioner has
approached this Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking interim protection of his claimed
rights pending arbitration.
7. Mr. Shyam Kapadia, learned Advocate appearing for the
Petitioner, submitted that the Petitioner’s title documents,
membership records and the Society’s own documents show that
the entire ground floor is one commercial unit admeasuring 2,000
6
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
sq. ft. He relied upon the Deed of Transfer dated 29 February
2024, registered under No. BDR-7-4328-2024, which records the
transfer of the entire ground floor, having a carpet area of 2,000
sq. ft., by the Trust in favour of the Petitioner. He submitted that
Respondent No. 2 has admitted the Petitioner’s ownership in its
reply. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that Share
Certificate No. 1 and Form “J” record the Petitioner’s name from 04
April 2026 in respect of shares Nos. 1 to 5. These shares are
covered by one Share Certificate issued on 12 March 1968 in
respect of the entire ground floor. He pointed out that Respondent
No. 1 has admitted in paragraph 25 of its reply that the premises
are recorded “under one share certificate in the name of a single
member”.
8. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner relied upon the Society’s
NOC and certificate dated 31 January 2020. He submitted that the
NOC issued for the ATM refers to “your ground floor premises i.e.
A-1”. The certificate describes the member as the “owner of entire
ground floor i.e. A-1”. According to him, these documents support
the Petitioner’s case that the entire ground floor is one unit. He
relied upon Bill No. 1 dated 01 April 2025, relating to municipal
property tax and maintenance charges. According to him, the bill
shows that the property tax and maintenance charges are levied
for one unit described as “A-001”. He submitted that the Society
has never issued separate bills for units described as A-1/A, A-1/B,
A-1/C or A-1/D. On the basis of these documents, learned
Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the Society’s own
records show that the premises comprise one unit admeasuring
7
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
2,000 sq. ft. According to him, the division of the premises into
four separate units and the area of 1,923.75 sq. ft. appear for the
first time in the Development Agreement (DA). He contended that
this description is inconsistent with the earlier records.
9. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the
sanctioned plan relied upon by the Society is of the year 1963 and
has been superseded by the later records of the Brihanmumbai
Municipal Corporation (BMC). He submitted that the plan relied
upon by Respondent No. 1 is described on its face as an “amended
plan showing the proposed building” for the builder. According to
him, the plan does not contain any readable date or sanction
number. The only reference to approval is to plans approved under
No. GB/372/III dated 23 January 1963, as mentioned in the
completion certificate at Exhibit H1. He contended that the plan
shows only the proposed building and does not establish how the
premises were subsequently sold or held by the purchasers.
Learned Advocate for the Petitioner then referred to the Articles of
Agreement dated 31 August 1964, which records the purchase
made on 16 January 1964. According to him, this document shows
that, about one year after the plan was approved, the Mehta family
purchased the entire ground floor from the builder on an
ownership basis for a single consideration of Rs. 58,000. The
purchase was made “jointly as tenants-in-common”, with the
purchasers holding undivided shares in the premises in the
proportions of 1/3, 1/3, 1/9, 1/9 and 1/9. He submitted that no
separate shop or flat was allotted to any of the co-owners. The
agreement records that possession was “yet to be received” and
8
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
that the premises could be let to “any person, bank or company”.
10. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner relied upon the
Conveyance executed by the builder in favour of the Society on 20
June 1967. He submitted that the schedule of purchasers in the
Conveyance lists Flats Nos. 2 to 10 and 13 to 18. However, the
ground floor is recorded as one entry in the name of “Shri Deepak
Mehta & Others”, for a consideration of Rs. 58,000. According to
him, this supports the Petitioner’s case that the entire ground floor
was treated as one premises. He relied upon the Lease executed in
favour of the State Bank of India with effect from 16 December
1969. He submitted that the entire ground floor was leased to the
Bank as one premises, with a carpet area of approximately 2,000
sq. ft. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner next referred to the BMC
Inspection Extract for the year 1991–1992. The extract records “Gr.
Floor Bk 1 comprising of Entire Gr floor let to M/s State Bank of
India”. He submitted that the entire ground floor was thus
recorded as one non-residential unit. The residential flats are
recorded on the first, second and third floors. He relied upon the
BMC Special Notice dated 05 March 2013, relating to Assessment
Year 2010–2011. According to him, the notice records the entire
ground floor as a single “Unit No. 1”, classified as commercial
premises for a bank and ATM. The carpet area is recorded as
198.88 square metres, which is approximately 2,140 sq. ft.
Learned Advocate for the Petitioner referred to BMC Annexure “A”
for the period 2020–2025. He submitted that this document
continues to record the ground floor as one commercial unit used
for a bank and ATM, having a carpet area of 198.88 square metres.
9
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
11. On the basis of the above documents, learned Advocate for
the Petitioner explained the sequence of events. The plan referred
to by the Society relates to the proposed building and carries an
approval reference dated 23 January 1963. Thereafter, on 16
January 1964, the builder sold the entire ground floor to the
Mehta family for Rs. 58,000, with the purchasers holding
undivided shares in the premises. The builder’s Conveyance in
favour of the Society dated 20 June 1967 records the ground floor
as one purchase. From 16 December 1969, the entire ground floor
was leased as one bank premises and has continued to be used for
that purpose. Further, the BMC records for 1991–1992, 2010–2011
and 2020–2025 show the entire ground floor as one commercial
unit. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that whatever
division may be shown in the original proposed building plan, the
ground floor was never sold, held, leased or assessed as separate
shops or flats. He pointed out that the BMC has treated the entire
ground floor as one commercial unit for more than 35 years. He
submitted that the Occupation Certificate and the Occupation
Certificate Plan, though referred to in Clause 4(b) of the DA, have
not been produced by either of the Respondents.
12. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that no
Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement (PAAA) has been
executed or registered in his favour. Therefore, according to him,
the Respondents cannot impose any penalty for his failure to
vacate the premises. In support of this submission, he made the
following points.
(a) Clause 20 of the DA requires the execution and
10
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
registration of a PAAA specifying the carpet area of the new
premises to be provided to a member. Clause 20(d) expressly
states: “Execution and registration of the PAAA shall be a
condition precedent to the Member vacating their respective
premises.” He submitted that, under this clause, execution
and registration of the PAAA must take place before the
member is required to vacate.
(b) Clauses 15(vii), 15(viii) and 22 of the DA provide for a
penalty of Rs. 50,000 per day for delay in vacating the
premises. According to the Petitioner, this liability can arise
only when a member fails to vacate in the manner
contemplated by the DA, after the PAAA has been executed
and registered.
(c) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner pointed out that
these submissions have been raised in the Petition. Section
XIII, paragraphs 47 to 51, deals with Clauses 15(vii), 15(viii)
and 22. Section XIV, paragraphs 52 to 57, deals with Clause
20 and the requirement of a PAAA. The same reliefs are
sought in prayers (c) and (d) of the Petition.
(d) He submitted that no PAAA has been executed or
registered in the Petitioner’s favour till date. Even a draft
PAAA has not been provided to him.
(e) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner disputed
Respondent No. 2’s claim that a draft PAAA was sent along
with the notice dated 13 July 2026. He submitted that the
notice merely calls upon the members to remain present for
11
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
execution of the PAAAs on dates to be communicated later.
No draft PAAA was enclosed with the notice. He pointed out
that this assertion has been denied in paragraph 36 of the
rejoinder filed by the Petitioner in response to Respondent
No. 2.
(f) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that his
letter dated 20 July 2026 requested that the PAAA should
record his correct name, the proper description and area of
the premises, and the time schedule for execution of the
agreement. He stated that these issues have been raised in
Section VIII, paragraph 29, of the Petition. However, no reply
has been received to the Petitioner’s request. He relied upon
Section VIII, paragraph 22, of the Petition in support of this
submission.
(g) Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submitted that the
Petitioner is ready and willing to vacate the premises once a
PAAA is executed and registered in his name, recording the
area of his premises and his entitlement in the redeveloped
building.
13. Mr. Ranjeev Carvalho, learned Advocate appearing for
Respondent No. 1, submitted that the present Petition has been
filed under Section 9 by one of the 18 members of Respondent No.
1 Society. The Petitioner seeks directions against Respondent Nos.
1 and 2 to identify and earmark his existing commercial unit,
stated to measure 2,000 sq. ft. on the ground floor, in all
redevelopment plans. He seeks directions to identify and earmark
12
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
his entitlement in the redeveloped building, which he claims
should be situated on the ground floor and/or the first floor.
Learned Advocate submitted that the Petitioner alone has invoked
the arbitration clause contained in the DA dated 29 January 2026
against both Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Learned Advocate for
Respondent No. 1 opposed the maintainability of the Petition and
disputed the Petitioner’s entitlement to the reliefs sought. His
submissions, in substance, were as follows.
(a) Learned Advocate submitted that the Petition filed by
the Petitioner alone is not maintainable. The Petitioner is not
a signatory to the DA, yet he has invoked its arbitration
clause against both Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. According to
Respondent No. 1, such a course is not permissible. Even if
the Petitioner is treated as a member who has accepted the
redevelopment, he cannot independently initiate arbitration
proceedings or seek interim reliefs against the Society and
the Developer under the arbitration clause of the DA.
Learned Advocate submitted that, once a person becomes a
member of a co-operative society, that person’s rights and
obligations are governed by the legal relationship with the
Society. An individual member cannot be permitted to obtain
interim orders that may delay or obstruct the entire
redevelopment project. He contended that the claim of one
member cannot be allowed to hold up the redevelopment
affecting all the members.
(b) Learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 submitted that
the Petitioner’s claim is contrary to the terms of the DA. The
13
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
arbitration clause covers disputes “arising out of or in
relation to” the DA. However, according to Respondent No.
1, the Petitioner’s claim is based on his own title documents,
the chain of transfers, the Share Certificate and the
municipal assessment records, rather than on any right
created under the DA. The Petitioner seeks to alter the DA by
requiring the Respondents to recognise one commercial unit
instead of three shops and one flat. The DA was executed
between Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and was not signed by the
Petitioner. Learned Advocate submitted that the dispute
raised by the Petitioner falls outside the scope of the
arbitration clause and cannot be referred to arbitration
under that agreement.
(c) Learned Advocate submitted that the Petitioner cannot
accept one part of the DA while disputing another part of the
same agreement. According to him, the Petitioner claims to
be an assenting member who supports the redevelopment
and seeks the benefit of the arbitration clause. At the same
time, he disputes the description of the premises contained
in the DA. Learned Advocate contended that the Petitioner
cannot claim the benefit of the arbitration clause in an
agreement whose terms he does not accept. If the Petitioner
is bound by the DA, he must accept the description of the
units recorded in it. If he is not bound by the DA, he cannot
invoke its arbitration clause.
(d) Learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 submitted that
the dispute between the Petitioner and the Society
14
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
concerning the nature and extent of the premises is
essentially a dispute between a society and its member.
According to him, the appropriate remedy is under Section
91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, or
by filing a civil suit seeking a declaration of title. He
contended that such a dispute cannot be decided through
arbitration under the DA.
14. Learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 then submitted that,
even if the Petition is held to be maintainable, the Petitioner has
failed to establish his entitlement to the reliefs claimed.
(a) He submitted that the Petitioner has not produced the
original title document showing the sale of the premises by
the builder. The Petitioner has, however, produced the
Articles of Agreement dated 31 August 1964, executed
between the purchasers. According to Respondent No. 1, this
agreement records the respective shares of the purchasers in
the ground-floor unit and authorises Mr. Deepak Kumar
Mehta to perform certain acts mentioned in the agreement.
Learned Advocate referred to recital 1 and Clause 6 of the
agreement, which describes the unit as a “Flat”. He
contended that the failure to produce the original title
document prevents the Petitioner from establishing his claim
and disentitles him to interim relief.
(b) Learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 submitted that
the sanctioned building plan shows that the ground floor of
the Society’s building consists of three shops and one
15
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
residential premises. According to him, this plan does not
support the Petitioner’s claim that the entire ground floor
was one commercial unit.
(c) He relied upon the registered Indenture dated 20 June
1967, executed between the original developer and
Respondent No. 1 Society. Under this document, the
developer conveyed and transferred to the Society the land
and the building standing on it. Learned Advocate submitted
that the Indenture expressly records that the building
consists of 18 flats and three shops. The ground floor
comprises three shops and one flat. The remaining premises
consist of three flats each on the first, second and third floors
of Wing A, and two flats each on the first, second and third
floors of Wing B. According to him, this document supports
the Society’s case that the ground floor was not originally
recognised as one commercial unit.
(d) Learned Advocate submitted that, on 03 March 1978,
Deepak Kumar Mehta transferred the ground-floor units to
the Sunder Jhangiani Family Trust. According to him, the
agreement executed on that date does not describe the
premises as either commercial or residential. It merely refers
to ground-floor units admeasuring 2,000 sq. ft. He
contended that this document does not establish that the
entire ground floor was recognised as one commercial unit.
(e) Learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 submitted that
Respondent No. 2 agreed to undertake the redevelopment on
16
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
the basis of the information and representations made
available to it. Acting on that basis, Respondent No. 2
entered into the DA dated 29 January 2026 with Respondent
No. 1. Under the DA, Respondent No. 2 agreed to provide a
new flat to the Petitioner in accordance with the area stated
in the statement annexed to the DA. According to
Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner cannot now seek an
entitlement contrary to the arrangement recorded in that
agreement.
(f) Learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 submitted that
the Petitioner acquired the ground-floor units under the
Deed of Transfer dated 29 February 2024. However, the fact
that the premises were leased to the State Bank of India and
that the Petitioner’s predecessors paid municipal taxes at
commercial rates does not, , establish that the premises were
converted from residential use to commercial use. According
to him, unless the Petitioner or his predecessor applied for a
change of user and the Municipal Corporation passed an
order permitting such change, the residential flat shown in
the sanctioned plan cannot be treated as having been
converted into a commercial unit merely because it was used
as a bank or assessed for municipal tax on commercial rates.
In support of this submission, learned Advocate relied upon
the judgment of this Court in Rajesh Mishra and Beena R.
Mishra v. Shree Ahuja Properties Pvt. Ltd. and Others,
reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 2945 . On these grounds,
learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1 submitted that the
17
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
Petition is liable to be dismissed.
REASONS AND FINDINGS:
15. I have gone through the pleadings and the submissions made
by Mr. Shyam Kapadia, learned Advocate for the Petitioner, and Mr.
Ranjeev Carvalho, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1.
16. The first issue which requires consideration is whether the
present Petition can be entertained under Section 9 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, even though the Petitioner
has not signed the Development Agreement dated 29 January
2026. It is necessary to see whether the documents produced by
him establish that he is entitled to have his premises considered as
one commercial unit of 2,000 sq. ft. for redevelopment. Another
issue is whether the Respondents can force him to vacate or
impose a penalty upon him for not vacating when the Permanent
Alternate Accommodation Agreement has not been executed and
registered in his favour. The Court must consider what protection
can be given for the present, without finally deciding the disputed
issues of title, lawful use and his entitlement in the redevelopment.
17. The Petitioner has relied upon documents which go back to
the year 1968. The Share Certificate dated 12 March 1968
concerns five A shares relating to the ground-floor premises. The
Articles of Agreement dated 31 August 1964, concerning the
purchase recorded on 16 January 1964, show that the Mehta
family purchased the ground floor for a single amount of Rs.
58,000. The purchasers had undivided shares in the premises. The
Petitioner has relied upon the Agreement dated 03 March 1978
18
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
executed in favour of the Sunder C. Jhangiani Family Trust, the
Transfer of Property Letter dated 01 August 1979, the Release
Deed dated 21 February 2002, the Registered Deed of Transfer
dated 29 February 2024 and the Declaration-cum-Ratification
dated 17 October 2025. These documents have to be looked into
while considering the Petitioner’s claim. They support his case that
rights in the entire ground floor passed from one person to another
through different transactions and that he has acquired his claimed
rights through those transactions. The Deed of Transfer dated 29
February 2024, registered under No. BDR-7-4328-2024, is one
important document in this regard. According to the Petitioner,
Respondent No. 2 has not disputed that he acquired rights under
this deed, though he was asked to give supporting documents. The
Petitioner has relied upon the later Declaration-cum-Ratification
and the records of the Society to support his claim. However, there
is a difference between claiming ownership of the premises and
proving that the premises are approved as one commercial unit of
a particular area. These are not the same thing. Even if the entire
ground floor was transferred or held by one person, it does not
mean that the Municipal Corporation had approved the whole area
as one commercial premises. In the same way, one Share
Certificate may show that the Society recognised one person as its
member holding the shares, but that alone does not establish the
permitted use or the exact arrangement of the premises under the
sanctioned building plan.
18. The Petitioner has relied upon the Society’s NOC and
certificate dated 31 January 2020. These documents describe the
19
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
premises as “your ground floor premises i.e. A-1” and the member
as the “owner of entire ground floor i.e. A-1”. These documents
have importance because they were issued by the Society. The
Society had then described the entire ground floor as one
premises. Further, in paragraph 25 of its reply, the Society has
admitted that the premises are covered by a single Share
Certificate “under one share certificate in the name of a single
member”.
19. The Petitioner has referred to the property tax and
maintenance records. The bill dated 01 April 2025 refers to one
unit described as “A-001”. According to the Petitioner, the Society
has never issued separate bills for units described as A-1/A, A-1/B,
A-1/C or A-1/D. The BMC Inspection Extract for 1991–1992
records the entire ground floor as premises let to the State Bank of
India. The BMC Special Notice dated 05 March 2013 shows the
ground floor as a single “Unit No. 1”, classified for commercial use
by a bank and ATM. The BMC Annexure “A” for 2020–2025 records
the entire ground floor as one commercial unit.
20. The Lease executed in favour of the State Bank of India, with
effect from 16 December 1969, is a relevant document. It shows
that the whole ground floor was given on lease to the Bank as one
premises having an approximate carpet area of 2,000 sq. ft. The
fact that the premises were used as one bank premises for a long
period, along with the Society’s records and municipal assessment
records, gives support to the Petitioner’s case that the entire
ground floor was treated and used as one unit.
20
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
21. In these circumstances, the Petitioner is justified in asking
the Respondents to explain why the premises are now being
divided into units A-1/A, A-1/B, A-1/C and A-1/D, and why the
Development Agreement mentions an area of 1,923.75 sq. ft. The
Respondents cannot simply ignore the earlier documents and rely
only upon the description in the Development Agreement without
considering what the Petitioner is saying. However, these
documents do not permit this Court, while deciding a Petition
under Section 9, to finally declare that the whole ground floor is
one approved commercial unit of exactly 2,000 sq. ft.
22. The reason is that the Respondents have relied upon the
sanctioned building plan and the Indenture dated 20 June 1967.
According to Respondent No. 1, the sanctioned plan shows three
shops and one residential premises on the ground floor. It is its
case that the Indenture describes the building as consisting of 18
flats and three shops, with three shops and one flat situated on the
ground floor. Respondent No. 1 has pointed out that the Petitioner
has not produced the original title document showing the sale of
the premises by the builder.
23. The description in the Indenture and the sanctioned plan is
relevant for deciding what kind of premises were approved and
how they were arranged. Merely because the whole ground floor
was purchased for one amount or was later leased to the State
Bank of India, it does not follow that the separate premises shown
in the original sanctioned plan lost their separate identity. It may
be that separate premises were held together or used by one
person. The original plan, the later transfers and the Society’s
21
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
records will therefore have to be considered together after
examining the complete documents. At the same time, referring to
the sanctioned plan alone does not answer all the objections raised
by the Petitioner. The plan relied upon is described as an amended
plan showing the proposed building. The Petitioner disputes
whether this plan shows the legal position when the premises were
transferred and thereafter used. He has pointed out that the
Occupation Certificate and the Occupation Certificate Plan referred
to in Clause 4(b) of the Development Agreement have not been
produced. These documents are relevant for knowing what
construction was approved and what was the lawful status of the
premises. Their absence becomes important because the
Respondents are relying upon the sanctioned arrangement to
oppose the Petitioner’s claim.
24. The objection of Respondent No. 1 that the original title
document has not been produced by the Petitioner requires
consideration. In the absence of that document, the complete
chain of title cannot be established conclusively at this stage.
However, the Petitioner has produced other documents, including
the registered Deed of Transfer, the Declaration-cum-Ratification,
the Society’s records and the municipal records. These documents
cannot be left out of consideration only because the original sale
document is not produced. Their effect and whether they are
enough to establish the exact area and nature of the premises will
have to be examined in proper proceedings before the forum
which has jurisdiction to decide these questions.
22
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
25. I find substance in the submission of Respondent No. 1 that
municipal assessment and actual commercial use,, do not prove
that the Municipal Corporation approved the entire premises as
one commercial unit. Respondent No. 1 has relied upon Rajesh
Mishra . The principle relied upon is that payment of municipal
taxes at commercial rates does not permit a change of user
contrary to the sanctioned plan. 40. This principle has relevance
because the Petitioner cannot rely only upon commercial
assessment and the lease to the State Bank of India to establish
that the premises were approved for commercial use. However, his
case is not based only on municipal assessment. He relies upon the
Society’s Share Certificate, the NOC and ownership certificate, the
transfer documents and the old records concerning the entire
ground floor. All these documents need to be considered together.
The legal status of the premises cannot be decided only on the
basis of municipal tax records. In the same way, the Petitioner’s
case cannot be rejected merely by referring to the description in
the proposed building plan. At this stage, the material placed
before the Court shows that there is a dispute about the
description, area and arrangement of the existing premises.
However, the material does not establish that the Petitioner can
insist that the entire ground floor must be treated as one
commercial unit of 2,000 sq. ft. for every purpose of
redevelopment. But the Respondents cannot ignore his claim or
proceed as if his ownership and membership have not been
recorded by the Society.
23
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
26. The next issue is whether the Petition can be maintained
when the Petitioner has not signed the Development Agreement.
Mr. Carvalho, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 1, submits that
the Petitioner cannot invoke the arbitration clause contained in the
agreement between the Society and the Developer. He submits that
the Petitioner cannot claim benefits under the Development
Agreement while disputing the description of his premises
mentioned in that agreement. According to him, the dispute is
between the Society and its member and must be raised under
Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, or
by filing a civil suit.
27. The legal position on this issue has been explained by this
Court in Pranav Constructions Limited v. Priyadarshini Cooperative
Housing Society Limited, Arbitration Appeal (L) No. 20093 of
2025, decided on 14 July 2025, reported as 2025:BHC-OS:10901-
DB. In that case, this Court held that disputes between a member
and the Society regarding additional area or other benefits in
redevelopment cannot be finally decided in proceedings under
Section 9. Such disputes must be decided in proper proceedings
under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960, or in a civil suit, as may be applicable. However, merely
because such a dispute exists, the Court is not prevented from
granting interim protection under Section 9 if the required
conditions for granting that protection are satisfied.
28. In paragraph 17 of the judgment in Pranav Constructions
Limited , this Court observed:
24
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
“The members of the Society are bound by the covenants of
the Development agreement and if they act contrary to the
covenants of the Development agreement, the Court
exercising power under Section 9 of the Act can step in and
make necessary interim measures.”
29. The Court explained in paragraph 17 that an individual
member’s grievance about appointment of the developer,
implementation of redevelopment or grant of additional area has
to be resolved outside proceedings under Section 9. If the
grievance relates to the business of the Society, it may be raised
under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act,
1960. Otherwise, the affected member may approach the civil
court. The above judgment makes it clear that there is a difference
between deciding a member’s disputed entitlement and giving
temporary protection to preserve the rights arising from the
redevelopment arrangement. This distinction applies to the present
case. The Petitioner is not asking to be kept out of redevelopment.
He wants to take part in it, but he seeks protection of his claimed
entitlement and proper identification of his premises. Though he
disputes the description and area mentioned in the Development
Agreement, he relies upon Clause 20 of that agreement, which
requires execution and registration of a Permanent Alternate
Accommodation Agreement before the member vacates.
30. In the facts of the present case, the objection that the
Petitioner has not signed the Development Agreement cannot be
accepted as a complete bar to considering his request for interim
protection. The Petitioner’s name was entered in the Society’s
Share Certificate and Form “J” on 04 April 2026, pursuant to the
25
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
orders of the Deputy Registrar. According to the pleadings, the
Society withdrew its challenge to the earlier membership order.
The Respondents have issued notices asking the Petitioner to
vacate. For the limited purpose of considering interim protection,
the Petitioner has shown that he claims rights through the
ownership documents and that his name is now recorded as a
member of the Society.
31. In Pranav Constructions Limited , this Court considered
whether a person who had not signed the Development Agreement
could be affected by an interim order under Section 9. The
judgment explains that interim orders under Section 9 are not
confined only to persons who have signed the arbitration
agreement, though the jurisdiction under Section 9 must be
invoked by a party to the arbitration agreement. It explains that
members of a Society are bound by the terms of the Development
Agreement and that an individual member should not be allowed
to obstruct redevelopment by raising an individual grievance in
proceedings under Section 9.
32. The judgment does not mean that every person who has not
signed the Development Agreement can invoke arbitration. It does
not permit the Court under Section 9 to decide issues which must
be decided by the Co-operative Court or the civil court. However,
the fact that the Petitioner has not signed the agreement is not
enough to reject his Petition without considering his claim,
membership and need for interim protection. He is a recorded
member claiming rights in premises forming part of the building
being redeveloped. His claimed entitlement is directly affected by
26
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
the Development Agreement and the steps being taken by the
Respondents under it. I reject the preliminary objection that the
Petition must be dismissed only because the Petitioner has not
signed the Development Agreement. This finding is only for
deciding whether his request for interim protection can be
considered. It does not finally declare that every claim made by
him comes within the arbitration clause. It does not decide
whether he is ultimately entitled to 2,000 sq. ft. of commercial
premises in the redeveloped building.
33. The argument that the Petitioner is accepting and rejecting
the Development Agreement at the same time requires
consideration. If the Petitioner claims benefits available to a
member under the Development Agreement, he cannot ignore all
the obligations and arrangements contained in it. However,
questioning the area or description of his premises does not mean
that he is rejecting the whole redevelopment arrangement. He may
agree to redevelopment but say that his own premises have not
been identified. This claim will have to be examined on its own
merits. At the same time, the Petitioner cannot obtain an interim
order directing the Respondents to rewrite the Development
Agreement or to accept the disputed area of 2,000 sq. ft. as
established. The Court has to protect his rights without deciding
matters which need detailed examination. Therefore, I do not
accept the Petitioner’s submission that the documents produced by
him conclusively establish his right to new commercial premises of
exactly 2,000 sq. ft. on the ground floor or the first floor. This issue
must remain open for decision in the proper proceedings.
27
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
34. Respondent No. 1 has submitted that the dispute must be
decided by the Co-operative Court under Section 91 of the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, or by the civil court.
In this regard, Pranav Constructions Limited makes it clear that the
validity of decisions taken by the General Body or Managing
Committee of a Society, and the individual claims of members
regarding additional area or similar benefits, cannot be finally
decided under Section 9. This Court cannot act as an appellate
authority over the commercial decisions of the Society only
because one member is not satisfied with them.
35. However, there is another issue raised in the present Petition.
The Petitioner says that the Respondents are trying to compel him
to vacate before executing and registering the PAAA required
under the Development Agreement. This concerns how the
redevelopment arrangement is being carried out and whether the
contractual condition which must be fulfilled before vacating has
been complied with. This issue can be considered for the limited
purpose of interim protection without deciding whether the
Society’s resolutions are valid or what the Petitioner’s final
entitlement is. Paragraph 18 of Pranav Constructions Limited
explains the difference between a person who wants to remain
outside redevelopment and an occupant who wants to participate
in redevelopment while protecting his claimed entitlement. In the
present case, the Petitioner is not asking to be excluded from
redevelopment. He wants to participate, but says that his premises
and entitlement should be recorded. Therefore, the Respondents
cannot rely upon the general principle that one member should
28
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
not obstruct redevelopment and use it to deny every kind of
protection to him. At the same time, the Petitioner cannot use this
Petition to stop redevelopment of the entire building only because
his own dispute has not been resolved.
36. The Petitioner has questioned the demand for possession
and the proposed penalty for delay in vacating. The main clause
relied upon by him is Clause 20(d) of the Development Agreement,
which states:
“Execution and registration of the PAAA shall be a condition
precedent to the Member vacating their respective premises.”
37. For the present purpose, the meaning of this clause is clear. If
execution and registration of the PAAA must take place before the
Petitioner vacates, the Respondents cannot insist that he should
first vacate and only afterwards execute and register the PAAA.
The sequence of steps mentioned in the agreement must be
followed. The Respondents have not shown that a PAAA has been
executed and registered in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner
says that no draft PAAA was given to him. Respondent No. 2 claims
that a draft was sent along with the notice dated 13 July 2026.
The Petitioner disputes this and says that the notice only called
upon the members to attend for execution of the PAAAs on dates
which would be communicated later. From the material placed
before this Court, there is not enough basis to conclude that the
Petitioner was given a PAAA containing the necessary details and
then refused to execute it.
29
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
38. The Petitioner has stated that, by his letter dated 20 July
2026, he asked the Respondents to record his correct name,
membership, premises and area and to specify the time for
execution of the PAAA. According to him, no reply has been
received. These circumstances support his case that the matter is
still unresolved. The Respondents have not established that the
Petitioner deliberately refused to comply with an agreement which
was ready for execution. The dispute about the description and
area of the premises must be addressed before coercive steps are
taken against him on the ground that he has failed to vacate
without any justification. The Petitioner has relied upon Clauses
15(vii), 15(viii) and 22 of the Development Agreement, which are
stated to provide for a penalty in case of delay in vacating.
However, there is a difference in the amount mentioned in the
record. During his submissions, the Petitioner refers to a penalty of
₹ ₹
50,000 per day, whereas prayer clause (c) refers to 2,50,000 per
day. It is not necessary to decide this difference at the present
stage. The main issue is whether any penalty can be imposed when
the contractual condition which must be fulfilled before vacating
has not been completed.
39. In my view, the Respondents cannot impose or recover a
penalty merely because the Petitioner has not vacated before the
PAAA required under Clause 20(d) has been executed and
registered. A demand made only on this ground would be
premature. This does not mean that the Petitioner can refuse to
vacate forever after the contractual requirements have been
fulfilled. Nor does this finally decide the meaning of every penalty
30
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
clause. It only protects the Petitioner from being penalised for not
doing something which, under the Development Agreement,
depends upon the PAAA being executed and registered first.
40. The Petitioner has asked for a direction requiring the
Respondents to execute an addendum or supplementary
agreement recording his name, membership, shareholding and
redevelopment entitlement in place of the erstwhile Trust. This
request has substance to the extent that the Petitioner’s name is
now recorded in the Society’s records. The redevelopment
documents and communications relating to him should not
continue to show the erstwhile Trust as the present member while
ignoring the later change made in the Society’s records. However,
the addendum cannot be used at this stage to settle the disputed
area or to compel the Developer to accept a commercial
entitlement which is still disputed. The proper course is to require
the Respondents to prepare the necessary documents in the
Petitioner’s name and record his membership and the existing
premises as described in the Society’s records. At the same time,
the documents should preserve the competing claims of both sides
regarding the exact area and arrangement of the premises. These
questions can then be decided in arbitration or other competent
proceedings without stopping the steps necessary for
redevelopment.
41. The Petitioner has asked for disclosure of the redevelopment
plans sanctioned or approved by the BMC, together with the
relevant plans, drawings, layouts and documents submitted by
Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 1, insofar as they relate to his
31
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
premises and proposed entitlement. This request appears
reasonable. The Petitioner cannot examine whether the description
in the Development Agreement is correct if the relevant plans are
not given to him. The Respondents rely upon the sanctioned plan
to oppose his claim. Therefore, the current sanctioned plans and
relevant documents showing how his premises have been dealt
with should be supplied to him.
42. The Petitioner has asked that provision should be made for
his existing strong room in the redeveloped premises. This
requirement may be important for his business. However, the
Court cannot direct that a particular room must be constructed or
approved without considering the sanctioned plan and building
regulations. At this stage, the Respondents should consider this
requirement while finalising the plans and PAAA, disclose the
relevant plans to the Petitioner and take such steps as are possible
before the competent authorities. Whether the strong room can
actually be provided, and on what conditions, will depend upon
the applicable building regulations and the required approvals.
43. The Petitioner has asked that monthly displacement
compensation, transit rent, hardship compensation and other
benefits should continue to be paid according to the correct area of
his premises. The present record does not permit the Court to
finally decide the amount payable by treating the disputed area of
2,000 sq. ft. as established. However, the Petitioner should not be
deprived of benefits under the Development Agreement which are
not disputed, merely because the dispute about his premises is still
pending. The Respondents must continue to pay the benefits which
32
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
are admittedly payable under the Development Agreement, subject
to adjustment after the dispute is finally decided. This does not
mean that the Court has accepted that the Petitioner is entitled to
benefits calculated on the basis of a commercial unit of 2,000 sq.
ft.
44. The Petitioner has asked for an order restraining the
Respondents from creating third-party rights in respect of his
premises and redevelopment entitlement. Stopping the entire
redevelopment project would be too wide a relief. The Society and
the Developer are entitled to continue redevelopment in
accordance with the Development Agreement and the sanctioned
plans. However, the Petitioner’s pending claim must be protected
so that the particular alternative accommodation proposed to be
given to him is not allotted or committed to someone else in a
manner which defeats his claim before the dispute is decided. The
proper protection would be to require the Respondents to identify
the alternative accommodation proposed for the Petitioner in the
relevant plans and documents. That particular accommodation
should not be allotted to a third party in a way which defeats the
Petitioner’s rights under the PAAA or the final decision in
arbitration. Such limited protection will preserve the subject
matter of the dispute without stopping redevelopment or affecting
allotments which are not connected with the Petitioner’s claim.
45. The Petitioner has asked for a direction to earmark new
premises for him on the ground floor and/or the first floor. This
request requires separate consideration. The material available
does not establish that he has an absolute right to premises on
33
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
either of these floors. His claim is based upon the nature and area
which he says his existing unit has. The Respondents dispute this
and rely upon the sanctioned plan and the Development
Agreement. The Court cannot decide the final location of the new
premises without first deciding the entitlement on which the claim
is based. Therefore, no interim direction can be issued declaring
that the Petitioner is entitled to commercial premises of 2,000 sq.
ft. on the ground floor or the first floor.
46. This does not prevent the Petitioner from establishing his
entitlement in appropriate proceedings. The Respondents must
preserve his claim and ensure that the PAAA and redevelopment
documents do not wrongly record that he has surrendered or given
up the claim. The PAAA may record the existing premises and
membership as shown in the Society’s records and the proposed
alternative accommodation under the Development Agreement. It
should state that the parties dispute the final area and character of
the existing premises and that their rights and contentions on
these issues remain open. In this manner, the contractual process
can go forward without finally deciding the disputed claim.
47. The Respondents have submitted that the majority of the
Society’s members have agreed to redevelopment and that one
member should not be allowed to obstruct the project. There is
substance in this submission. The Court has to consider that
redevelopment affects all the members and that delay may cause
hardship to the other occupants. Pranav Constructions Limited
makes it clear that an individual member’s grievance about
additional area or the manner of redevelopment cannot ordinarily
34
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
be used to stop the entire project. At the same time, the decision
of the majority does not allow the Society or the Developer to
ignore the recorded rights of a member or avoid an express
contractual condition concerning surrender of possession. The
proper balance is to allow redevelopment to continue while
protecting the Petitioner from being compelled to vacate without
the agreed documents and from losing any entitlement which he
may ultimately establish. Such an order does not interfere with the
commercial decision of the Society. It only ensures that the
contractual steps relating to the Petitioner are completed in the
manner agreed.
48. The Petitioner’s request to restrain every action under the
redevelopment plan is too wide. This Court is not deciding
whether the Society’s resolution is valid or declaring that the
Development Agreement is invalid. It is not deciding whether the
description in the agreement must be changed to show one
commercial unit of 2,000 sq. ft. The protection must be limited to
the Petitioner’s own premises, his PAAA and the interim steps
necessary to preserve his claim until it is decided.
49. I find that the Respondents must not take coercive steps
against the Petitioner before the PAAA is executed and registered
in accordance with Clause 20(d). The Respondents may continue
the redevelopment work. However, they cannot treat the Petitioner
as having refused to vacate in breach of the Development
Agreement when the document required before vacating has not
been executed and registered. After the contractual requirements
are fulfilled and the PAAA is registered, the Petitioner will have to
35
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
act according to it, without affecting his right to pursue the dispute
about the area and character of the existing premises.
50. The interim protection must meet the requirements of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. If the arbitral proceedings
have not yet started, they must be commenced within the period
provided under Section 9(2) of the Act, or within such time as this
Court may permit. The purpose of the interim protection is to
preserve the Petitioner’s rights until arbitration takes place. It
cannot take the place of a final decision on the dispute by the
arbitral tribunal or any other competent forum.
51. For these reasons, the Petition deserves to be partly allowed.
The Petitioner cannot be granted all the reliefs in the form in
which he has asked for them, because this Court cannot declare
that he has a final right to 2,000 sq. ft. of commercial
accommodation in the redeveloped building. However, he is
entitled to limited interim protection concerning his recorded
membership and the contractual procedure which must be
followed before he vacates. The disputed questions concerning the
area and lawful use of the premises will remain open for decision
in the appropriate proceedings.
52. The Petition is partly allowed in the following terms:
(a) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall, within two weeks from
the date of this order, provide the Petitioner with copies of
the current redevelopment plans sanctioned or approved by
the BMC, together with the relevant drawings and
documents showing the description, area and proposed
36
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
alternative accommodation relating to the Petitioner’s
premises;
(b) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall prepare and furnish to
the Petitioner a draft Permanent Alternate Accommodation
Agreement (“PAAA”) in his name, recording his present
membership and shareholding and identifying the existing
premises with reference to the Society’s records. The draft
shall record that the parties dispute the precise area,
configuration and legal character of the existing premises,
and that their respective rights and contentions on those
matters remain open for determination in the appropriate
proceedings;
(c) The Respondents shall take steps to execute and
register the PAAA in accordance with the Development
Agreement and the applicable law, without treating the
Petitioner’s disputed claim regarding the area and
configuration of the existing premises as determined by this
order;
(d) Until the PAAA is executed and registered in
accordance with Clause 20(d) of the Development
Agreement, the Respondents shall not take coercive steps to
compel the Petitioner to vacate the premises or impose or
recover any penalty on the ground that he has not vacated
before the said contractual condition has been fulfilled;
(e) The Respondents shall continue to pay or provide the
undisputed contractual transit rent, displacement
37
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
compensation, hardship compensation and other
redevelopment benefits payable to the Petitioner under the
Development Agreement, subject to the rights and
contentions of the parties regarding the area and
entitlement;
(f) The Respondents shall identify the proposed alternative
accommodation to be provided to the Petitioner under the
Development Agreement and shall not allot that particular
accommodation to any third party in a manner which would
defeat the Petitioner’s rights under the PAAA or the final
decision in arbitration;
(g) It is clarified that this order does not declare that the
entire ground floor is conclusively one commercial unit
admeasuring 2,000 sq. ft. It does not declare that the
Petitioner is entitled to a commercial premises of that area
on the ground floor or first floor of the redeveloped building.
All such rights and contentions are kept open for
determination in the appropriate proceedings;
(i) The redevelopment project shall not be stayed merely
because of the disputes raised by the Petitioner. The
Petitioner shall not obstruct the redevelopment in a manner
contrary to the Development Agreement and the lawful steps
taken by the Society and Developer, subject to the interim
protections granted by this order;
(j) If arbitral proceedings have not already commenced,
the Petitioner shall take steps to commence them within the
38
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
carbp31481-2026-J-FM.doc
period prescribed under Section 9(2) of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, subject to any time permitted by this
Court;
(k) All other prayers are kept open for determination by
the arbitral tribunal or the competent forum, as may be
permissible in law.
(l) Despite Respondent Nos.1 and 2 complying with
clauses (a) and (b) of this order, and if the Petitioner fails to
execute PAAA, the Court Receiver shall stand appointed, and
the Court Receiver shall execute PAAA for and on behalf of
the Petitioner.
53. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms. There shall be
no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
39
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 17:28:53
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)