MR NIKHIL THAKER vs NEL HOLDINGS SOUTH LTD
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
®
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29899
WP No. 17404 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO. 17404 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
MR. NIKHIL THAKER
S/OF LATE SRI MAHENDRA JAMDAS
THAKER,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 1, ABDUL RASUL AVENUE,
KALIGHAT,
KOLKATA - 700 026
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NEL HOLDINGS SOUTH LTD.,
(NOW KNOWN AS SATCHMO
HOLDINGS LTD.),
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE
AT NO.110, A WING,
ANDREWS BUILDING,
BENGALURU -560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
MR.K.B.SWAMY
2. NITESH SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
NEL HOLDINGS SOUTH LTD.,
(NOW KNOWN AS SATCHMO
Digitally
signed by
SUVARNA T
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29899
WP No. 17404 of 2026
HC-KAR
HOLDINGS LTD.),
NO 110, A WING, ANDREWS BUILDING,
BENGALURU -560 001
3. KAMALA DEVI,
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
LATE SRI MEWARAM R. SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO 4/9,
JAMUNA NIVAS, CRESCENT ROAD,
HIGH GROUNDS,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
4. MANJU PRAKASH,
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
LATE SRI MEWARAM R.SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 113/114,
PAL LINK ROAD, SHYAM NAGAR,
JODHPUR - 342 003
5. LALITADEVI GAUTAMCHAND DARIWAL,
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
LATE SRI MEWARAM R. SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT RUSHIKA APARTMENT,
SHAHIBAUG,
AHMEDABAD - 380 004
6. SARITA,
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
LATE SRI MEWARAM R. SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 202,
'SAI APARTMENTS', SURVEYOR STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU -560 004
7. DEEPA RAHUL,
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF
LATE SRI MEWARAM R. SHAH,
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29899
WP No. 17404 of 2026
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 5, 'KANCHAN KRUPA',
SERPENTINE ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST,
BENGALURU -560 020
8. SURAJMAL MALOO,
S/O. RAMLALJI,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
9. PREM KUMAR MALOO,
S/O. SURAJ MALOO,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
10. MOOLCHAND MALOO,
SON OF MEWARAM R. SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
11. BHARATH KUMAR,
S/O. MEWARAM R. SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
RESPONDENTS NO.8-11 ARE
ARE RESIDING AT
'SURAJ TEXTILE AGENCY',
RD
NO.16/17, 3 FLOOR,
SHARMA COMPLEX, CHICKPET,
BANGALORE -560 053
12. KUKKAJE RAMAKRISHNA BHAT,
SOLE ARBITRATOR,
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (RETD.),
ND
NO. 116/5-1, 2 FLOOR,
TH
11 CROSS, NEXT TO UNION BANK,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU -560 003
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER
CALLING FOR THE RECORDS OF COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29899
WP No. 17404 of 2026
HC-KAR
TH
PETITION NO. 04/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 10 ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND DESIGNATED
COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU, AND QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 08.06.2026 (ANNEXURE A), THEREBY
DIRECTING THAT THE PETITIONER BE IMPLEADED AS
ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO. 7 IN COMMERCIAL
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 04/2023.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 11.06.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
CAV ORDER
Aggrieved by the order passed on in I.A.No.8 in
Commercial Arbitration Petition No.4/2023 dated 08.06.2026
by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge and Designated
Commercial Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, the
petitioner/impleading applicant is before this Court.
2. The facts of the case are that respondent Nos.3 to 11
and respondent No.1 entered into a Joint Development
Agreement with respect to the Schedule A properties. On the
same date, a General Power of Attorney was executed in favour
of respondent No.2. The petitioner was interested in purchasing
a villa in the ‘Nitesh Key Biscayne’ Project and his interest was
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29899
WP No. 17404 of 2026
HC-KAR
recognized vide letter of novation, whereby the petitioner was
recognized as the purchaser of Villa No.RS-31, a 4 BHK unit
having built up area of approximately 5,266.80 sq.ft., to be
constructed on the Schedule A properties in place of the earlier
allotee. An Agreement of Sale was executed in favour of the
petitioner with respect to Villa No.RS-31 by respondent No.1. In
spite of repeated follow-up, respondent No.1 failed to provide
any concrete update on commencement of the development of
Schedule B property. The petitioner was informed by
respondent No.1 that there are serious disputes between
respondent No.1 and the land owner and that the matter had
been referred to arbitration. On 31.01.2023, an award was
passed partly allowing the claims of the land owner and
rejecting the claim of respondent No.1. On 09.03.2023, the
award was corrected under as Section 33 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’).
3. Aggrieved by the said award, respondent Nos.1 and 2
have filed Com.A.P.No.4/2023 under Section 34 of the Act read
with Rule 4 of the High Court of Karnataka Arbitration
(Proceedings before the Courts) Rules, 2001 before the
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29899
WP No. 17404 of 2026
HC-KAR
Commercial Court, Bangalore Rural. The petitioner filed
Com.A.A.No.137/2026 seeking an order of temporary
injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the
schedule properties to third parties from creating any rights
over the schedule properties contrary to the rights of the
petitioner. An ad-interim order was granted restraining the
respondents from alienating or creating any encumbrances over
the schedule B property until further orders. The petitioner filed
an application to impleaded him as additional respondent No.7
in Com.A.P.No.4/2023 which came to be dismissed by order
impugned.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/
impleading applicant submits that Section 9 proceedings in
Com.A.A.No.137/2026 are limited to interim protective relief
pending the constitution of an arbitral Tribunal in a future
arbitration between the petitioner and the respondents and
they do not and cannot resolve the substantive question of
whether the JDA and GPA are valid and subsisting which will be
decided in the present petition filed under Section 34 of the
Act. If the petition is decided without the petitioner being
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29899
WP No. 17404 of 2026
HC-KAR
heard, the interim injunction in Com.A.A.No.137/2026 will be
rendered infructuous and meaningless. It is submitted that
allowing the petitioner to participate in the proceedings under
Section 34 of the Act avoids multiplicity of litigation and
ensures consistent adjudication by the same Court on the same
property rights which is a foundational principle underlying
Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC. It is submitted that if the petitioner
is impleaded, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. It
is submitted that the impugned order is inconsistent with the
ad-interim order granted by the same Court in
Com.A.A.No.137/2026. Further, the impleadment of the
petitioner does not expand the Section 34 challenge.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
perused the material on record. The appeal that is pending is
filed against an award passed by the Arbitrator. The petitioner
has already filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act and there
is an injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or
creating any encumbrances on the scheduled property until
further orders. By virtue of the said order, the petitioner's
rights are protected. The petitioner wants to implead himself in
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29899
WP No. 17404 of 2026
HC-KAR
the arbitration proceedings pending between the developer and
the land owner. The arbitration clause exists solely within the
joint development agreement between the land owner and the
developer. The purchaser is completely outside the agreement.
The purchasers contract is with the developer. But not with the
landlord. The third party buyer’s right is purely derivative
against the developer. If the developer breaches the contract,
the purchaser’s remedy is to sue the developer. Third-party
property buyers are strangers to the primary dispute. If every
apartment purchaser is impleaded in the arbitration
proceedings between the landowner and the builder, the very
sanctity and efficacy of the arbitral process would stand dilated.
Arbitration is founded upon party autonomy and consent.
Permitting the impleadment of numerous apartment
purchasers, who are not parties to the arbitration agreement,
would transform a consensual and private dispute resolution
mechanism into a multifaceted representative proceeding,
thereby defeating the very objective of arbitration, namely
efficiency, expectation, confidentiality and limited party
participation. It would enlarge the scope of dispute and
undermine the contractual framework agreed upon by the
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29899
WP No. 17404 of 2026
HC-KAR
parties. Any intervention of third parties must be justified by a
legally recognized exception and not merely by the existence of
a commercial or factual interest in the outcome of the dispute.
Arbitration cannot be converted into a forum for adjudication of
claims of all persons who may have an indirect or consequential
interest in the subject matter of the dispute.
6. Furthermore, the petitioner herein had filed an
application under Section 9 of the Act against the respondents
seeking necessary reliefs. The impleading applicant has already
enforced his rights before the competent Court and obtained an
ex parte ad interim injunction order. As the rights of the
impleading applicant are protected in Com.A.A.No.137/2026,
the presence of the impleading applicant in the present
proceedings is not necessary. The trial Court observed that the
original JDA and GPA is cancelled by the Tribunal vide award
dated 30.01.2023 in A.C.No.97/2019 and the impleading
applicant has got no right to put forth his grievance before this
Court and even in the absence of the impleading applicant,
effective decree can be passed. Further, the impleading
applicant can always pursue his remedies against his vendor.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29899
WP No. 17404 of 2026
HC-KAR
7. In the light of the above discussion, the trial court had
rightly considered and dismissed the application. Accordingly,
this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
dismissed
i. Accordingly, the writ petition is .
ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.
SD/-
(LALITHA KANNEGANTI)
JUDGE
MEG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1