Mayank J Shah vs Raju V Shah
- Court
- Bombay High Court
2026:BHC-OS:12503
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 33472 OF 2025
Mayank J. Shah & Ors. …Petitioners
Versus
Raju V. Shah & Ors. …Respondents
Mr. Navroz Seervai, Senior Advocate, a/w Mr. Sanjay Jain, Adv. Hrushi
Narvekar a/w Adv. Parag Kabadi, Adv. Drishti Gudhaka, Adv. Vidhi Parwal i/b
DSK Legal for the Petitioner.
Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Malcolm Siganporia a/w Mr.
Yuvraj Singh a/w Mr. Rajesh Satpalkar a/w Ms. Meherzeen Avasia a/w Mr.
Devansh Gadda i/b Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt and Caroe for the
Respondent No.1.
CORAM: SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
DATE: JUNE 8, 2026
JUDGEMENT :
Context and Factual Background:
1. This is a Petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) impugning an order dated September 20,
2025 (“ Impugned Order ”) passed under Section 17 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996.
Page 1 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
2. The Petitioners, Mayank J. Shah, Shreyans J. Shah and Shruti M. Shah
,
(“collectively Mayank”) and the Respondent No. 1 Raju V. Shah (“Raju”) are
partners of Respondent No. 2, Vidhi Research and Development LLP (“Vidhi
LLP”) . Vidhi LLP is governed by a Limited Liability Partnership Agreement
dated August 14, 2014 (“LLP Agreement”) , which is the instrument containing
the arbitration agreement.
3. The disputes between Mayank and Raju relate to control and
management of Vidhi LLP, which owns land admeasuring approximately
2,18,122 square metres (“Subject Land”) earlier owned by Pfizer Limited
(“Pfizer”) . The parties have a serious conflict over governance rights vested in
Raju about business and operational decisions of Vidhi LLP as contained in
the LLP Agreement. The parties have been engaged in arbitration for a
considerable period of time.
4. I have to take judicial notice of the fact that submissions in the
arbitration proceedings have been concluded and judgement is reserved. Such
judicial notice is based on multiple Petitions under Section 37 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 having been brought before this Court
on various occasions from time to time, challenging decisions in other Section
17 proceedings filed in the same arbitration.
5. As regards this Petition, the challenge essentially is to the restraint
imposed by the Impugned Order, whereby Mayank is restrained from dealing
Page 2 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
with the Subject Land. The context of the restraint is Mayank’s claim that an
offer has been received for sale of a portion of the Subject Land admeasuring
1,00,000 square metres, purportedly from a multinational company for an
indicated rate of ₹ 1.25 lakh per square metre – a projected consideration
value of Rs. 1,250 crores.
6. According to Mayank, restraint on completing such a lucrative offer is
unnecessary under Section 17 of the Act. Mayank would contend that the
Impugned Order ignores the rule of majority, the provisions of the Limited
Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (“LLP Act”) and the provisions of the LLP
Agreement that bind the parties. According to Mayank, the Impugned Order
interferes with the commercial wisdom of the majority partners of Vidhi LLP,
and most importantly, grossly misinterprets an order dated July 20, 2022
passed by the very same Learned Arbitral Tribunal and that too by consent of
the parties.
Analysis and Findings:
7. I have heard at significant length, Mr. Navroz Seervai, Learned Senior
Advocate and Mr. Sanjay Jain Learned Advocate on behalf of Mayank; and Mr.
Chetan Kapadia, Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of Raju. With their
assistance, I have examined the material on record.
Page 3 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
8. The Impugned Order essentially dealt with Interim Application No. 14
dated August 18, 2025 (“IA 14”) filed by Raju seeking a restraint on Mayank
from dealing in any manner with the Subject Land and to restrain Mayank
from giving effect to a letter dated July 7, 2025, by which Mayank had issued a
notice for a circular resolution giving authority to Mayank to complete the
transaction pursuant to the offer over a substantial portion of the Subject Land
that is referred to above.
9. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal examined the contents of such letter sent
by Mayank in his capacity as a Designated Partner of Vidhi LLP, intimating
that a proposal had been received for assignment and transfer of
approximately 1,00,000 square metre at a tentative rate of Rs. 1.25 lakh per
square metre to be carved out of the Subject Land. The said letter interpreted
an earlier interlocutory order dated July 20, 2022 passed by the Learned
Arbitral Tribunal and called upon Raju to communicate his acceptance or
reservations, if any, to the proposed transaction as described (without any
supporting documents) within a period of six weeks, failing which Mayank
indicated that he would proceed with the sale of the portion of the Subject
Land “without any further recourse” to Raju or to the Learned Arbitral
Tribunal.
10. On August 23, 2025, after hearing submissions on IA 14, the Learned
Arbitral Tribunal directed Mayank to disclose to Raju, all documents
Page 4 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
underlying the letter dated July 7, 2025, so that any decision by Raju on the
merits of the proposal could be an informed one. According to Raju, there has
been no compliance with the disclosure directed by the Learned Arbitral
Tribunal on August 23, 2025. Yet, in an uninformed manner, a coercive sale of
a substantial portion of the Subject Land was being threatened, thereby posing
a risk to the subject matter of the arbitration agreement.
11. A plain reading of the Impugned Order would indicate that Mayank's
response to the aforesaid contention is entirely pitched on the interpretation
of law. The affidavit-in-reply from Mayank underlines the majority principle
in the running of bodies corporate; asserts that there is no embargo on the
majority taking a decision to transfer or deal with the Subject Land; and
asserts that the provisions of the LLP agreement that are relied upon by Raju
to oppose the proposed transaction are provisions that restrain partners of
Vidhi LLP individually and do not restrain Vidhi LLP acting through majority
of the partners. Mayank asserted that he is a 80% owner of interest in Vidhi
LLP and it is entirely in his commercial wisdom to deal with the Subject Land
in the manner he chooses and he cannot be stalled by a minority partner of
Vidhi LLP questioning the commercial wisdom of the majority partner.
12. Mayank has also asserted that Raju has ceased to be a partner of Vidhi
LLP. This contention is based on the argument that Raju had vested the
benefits of his interest in Vidhi LLP in a trust for the benefit of his son, and
Page 5 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
that constituted cessation of partnership interest by Raju, thereby rendering
all special protections enjoyed by Raju under the LLP Agreement coming to an
end. Such a contention has not only been stayed by earlier orders passed
under Section 17 by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal, but also such protections
granted by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal have been endorsed by this Court,
disposing of challenges under Section 37 of the Act. I have already had
occasion to pass judgments dated April 10, 2026 and May 18, 2026 in this
regard, endorsing the basis on which the Impugned Orders are meritorious
along with legal analysis based on a prima facie view of first principles of trust
law read with law governing limited liability partnerships. Equally, it is
noteworthy that for purposes of these proceedings, Mr. Seervai acknowledged
that these protections have been granted by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal and
form subject matter of separate challenges, but what is in issue in the
captioned Petition is the endorsement of the unreasonable nature of Raju's
opposition to the sale of a significant portion of the Subject Land.
13. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal examined Mayank's notice dated July 7,
2025 in the backdrop of the earlier developments which now form subject
matter of the aforesaid judgments rendered by me. That apart, the Learned
Arbitral Tribunal considered and interpreted an earlier order dated July 20,
2022 which had put in place an interim arrangement, by consent of the
parties. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal’s interpretation of such earlier order of
Page 6 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
July 2022 is assailed by Mr. Seervai as being perverse, which he contends
infects the Impugned Order.
14. Under the interim arrangement of July 2022, a demand for capital
contribution of Rs. 54 crores was agreed by Mayank not to be pressed, and an
advance notice of eight weeks was to be given, should Mayank seek
enforcement of the said demand. The purported resolution of Vidhi LLP
considered in that order dated July 20, 2022 also pertained to sale of two flats
owned by Vidhi LLP. In case such sale were persisted with, and the terms were
finalized, the same were to be communicated to Raju in writing. If Raju was in
a position to bring a higher offer to the table within four weeks, sale would be
in terms of such better offer, failing which the sale of the two flats would be
completed on the terms offered.
15. Separately, as an interim measure, the July 2022 order provided for a
framework of procedure for communication as agreed between the parties. It
was made clear that all communication by or on behalf of the LLP would be
copied to Raju. All communication received by the LLP would also be sent to
Raju. Raju would be entitled to communicate his reservations or suggestions
to Mayank. Raju would not write any letter of communication to any third
party in relation to transactions proposed on behalf of Vidhi LLP , nor take any
steps to obstruct or hinder any such transactions, and the parties would be at
liberty to move the Learned Arbitral Tribunal, if any, of the aforesaid activities
Page 7 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
or actions on behalf of Vidhi LLP necessitated consideration of interference by
the Learned Arbitral Tribunal. Finally, as regards the Subject Land (which
incidentally is substantially the whole of the assets held by Vidhi LLP) it was
directed that in case any proposal were made for dealing with the Subject Land
or any part thereof, Mayank would communicate the same in writing to Raju,
who would have the right to communicate his reservations or suggestions
within six weeks. Unless Raju expressly consented, no decision would be
implemented for a period of eight weeks and the parties would be at liberty to
move the Learned Arbitral Tribunal for interim relief, if any.
16. In the Impugned Order, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal set out the true
effect and meaning of the order dated July 20, 2022 and went on to reject the
muscular majoritarian approach canvassed on behalf of Mayank. The dispute
between the parties was really that according to Raju, he was entitled to
receive all communications that Vidhi LLP engaged in so that he could assess
the consequences of the same and take an informed decision on any proposal
propounded by Mayank. On the other hand, Mayank’s contention was that the
requirement to furnish any documents and communication related only to the
resolutions by which Raju's partnership interest was under threat and the
demand for contribution of Rs. 54 Crores had been made in 2022, which had
been subject matter of what was considered on July 20, 2022.
Page 8 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
17. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal disagreed. Mr. Seervai would submit
that the said order and the arrangement contained in it being one passed by
consent, Mayank’s view on what he had consented to cannot be wished away.
That apart, it is Mayank’s contention that as a majority owner of interests in
Vidhi LLP, his commercial wisdom should prevail. If Raju were to convey his
objections within the six-week period alluded to in the July 2022 order, the
additional period of two weeks to approach the Learned Arbitral Tribunal
before implementing the same would enable Raju to seek interim relief but in
grant of such interim relief, the legal position to be brought to bear would be
that Raju was not entitled to any information or material other than that
connected to the resolutions that were subject matter of the original interim
order dated July 20, 2022.
18. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal rejected the aforesaid stance. The
Learned Arbitral Tribunal held that Raju had invoked arbitration in his
capacity as a partner of the Vidhi LLP and his entitlement as a partner was
subject matter of the Arbitration Agreement. In any case, as a partner, he
would be not only entitled to receive all communications as stipulated in the
order dated July 20, 2022 but also in his view of Raju being designated as a
“working partner” under clause 9.1 of the LLP Agreement, his entitlement to
be involved in the affairs of Vidhi LLP could not be wished away. This is an
Page 9 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
eminently sensible interlocutory view that has been taken within the
framework of the protective jurisdiction of Section 17 of the Act.
19. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal held that the interim order dated July
20, 2022 had indeed been passed by consent of the parties in the backdrop of
the aforesaid factual matrix and ruled that it intended to cover not merely
Resolution Nos. 2 and 3, but to cover generally, the conduct of the affairs of
Vidhi LLP during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. Learned
Arbitral Tribunal pointed out that the import of the order dated July 20, 2022
as canvassed by Mayank would mean that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal had
not effectively protected the parties about the conduct of the affairs of Vidhi
LLP during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings and that the Learned
Arbitral Tribunal had actually taken away the entitlements that were otherwise
available to Raju as a working partner under the LLP Agreement. The Learned
Arbitral Tribunal held that such a case had neither been proposed by any party
nor intended by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal when the July 2022 order was
passed.
20. Against this backdrop, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal also listed the
documents actually disclosed by Mayank to Raju pursuant to the order dated
August 23, 2025 in the course of IA 14, to enable Raju to make an informed
decision in connection with the transaction proposed over a significant portion
of the Subject Land. Having considered these documents, the Learned Arbitral
Page 10 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
Tribunal held that they do not inspire confidence for permitting a sale of the
portion of the Subject Land as proposed and that too as an interlocutory
measure.
21. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal has provided detailed reasons in respect
of each of the documents in question to explain why they do not inspire
confidence. An agreement dated April 4, 2025, shared by Mayank with Raju is
not an agreement with the proposed purported purchaser, but is an agreement
with another entity called Ulltra Lifespace Private Limited (“Ulltra”) which
according to Mayank himself was earlier a “group company” of Mayank, but
has purportedly ceased to be so. Ulltra, by that agreement, proposes to render
services for a potential sale of the land with a 3% commission or fee payable by
Vidhi LLP to Ulltra on the value of the transaction. Neither before nor after
such agreement was executed between Vidhi LLP and Ulltra, was anything
about it ever disclosed to Raju. No documents or communications in
connection with the agreement nor any resolution permitting the execution of
such agreement had been disclosed, and there is no indication of any area of
land or price for the land in the said agreement.
22. Next, dealing with a non-disclosure and confidentiality agreement
between Ulltra and an undisclosed third party (the name had been redacted
and blanked out), the Learned Arbitral Tribunal noted that such agreement,
apart from being with an undisclosed party records that Ulltra proposed to
Page 11 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
provide real estate services to such party, again with no indication as to the
area or price of the land, or implications for Vidhi LLP in this regard.
23. The third document dealt with by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal is yet
another redacted letter dated August 26, 2025 addressed to Ulltra by a party
whose name is undisclosed, setting out the scope of services and the fee
payable to Ulltra on the rate per square metre that may be achieved. It is
through this document that the purported tentative consideartion for the
transaction is claimed by Mayank. What is unclear is who would pay the fee to
Ultra, who authorized Ulltra to enter into an agreement with the third party
and that too on behalf of Vidhi LLP, and who on behalf of Vidhi LLP agreed to
increase the fee from 3% to 18%. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal also found
that the fee in question did not appear to be a fee normally payable to a
facilitator of such a transaction.
24. A term sheet between a party purportedly holding 100% interest in a
special purpose vehicle, which in turn owns 30 acres of land, and yet another
party (all of which is redacted), indicating some transaction for a
consideration in the range of Rs. 55 crores to Rs. 60 crores per acre, was also
similarly found to be vague by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal.
25. In my opinion, the vociferous contention on Mayank’s behalf that the
Learned Arbitral Tribunal has misread the order dated July 20, 2022, which
misreading should be adequate to set aside the Impugned Order, is entirely
Page 12 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
without merit. In my opinion, no case is made out for interference with the
Impugned Order, which is a sensible, reasonable and evidently logical interim
arrangement to preserve and protect the subject matter of the arbitration
agreement. Even if the order passed in July 2022 were to be a consent order,
on the basis of the material on record now made available and analysed by the
Learned Arbitral Tribunal, a full-blown measure of protection of the subject
matter of the arbitration agreement is wholly justified. Therefore, even
hypothetically accepting Mr. Seervai’s contested submission at its highest (that
Mayank is the best judge of confirming what he agreed to), in my view a clear
case is made out for protection of the subject matter of the arbitration
agreement i.e. ownership of the Subject Land. Raju is as much a party to the
order passed by consent, and if the two parties who had consented to the July
2022 order were to have a disagreement over what they consented to, it is only
the Learned Arbitral Tribunal that would need to consider how to interpret the
July 2022 order. That apart, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal is fully clothed
with powers to grant protective measures, which it has ably discharged by way
of the Impugned Order. Any contrary outcome in the Impugned Order would
have made a mockery of the protective jurisdiction under Section 17.
26. Leaving aside the interpretation of the July 2022 Order, the Learned
Arbitral Tribunal issued directions at an initial stage of considering IA 14 and
directed disclosure of information. Mayank’s conduct in reaction to this
Page 13 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
direction makes a mockery of the directions issued and is prima facie
contemptuous of the direction to be accountable. The Impugned Order speaks
for itself as to why the documents shared, purportedly in compliance with the
directions to disclose, do not inspire confidence to enable disposal of a
significant portion of the only asset owned by Vidhi LLP. Such land is the
subject matter of the arbitration agreement and the Impugned Order
preserves and protects that in an impeccable manner.
27. The claim that the transaction in question would yield Rs. 1,250 crores
as asserted by Mayank, truly does not inspire confidence going just by the
heavily redacted documents that Mayank chose to provide to Raju and to the
Learned Arbitral Tribunal. Even ignoring the redactions, the structuring of
the documents presents a smoke-and-mirrors imagery. No cogent empirical
basis to inspire confidence even of this Court is discernible, so as to justify an
appellate intervention on the basis of the grievance that Mayank has come to
Court with.
28. Needless to say, Raju is meant to be the working partner of Vidhi LLP.
The LLP Agreement protects Raju from making capital contributions into the
firm, and from any dilution of his ownership stake in Vidhi LLP. Yet, it is
apparent that there has been a relentless assault by Mayank in the course of
the arbitration proceedings – with claims of Raju’s rights having come to an
end; of the LLP Agreement having been overridden by an Addendum; of Raju
Page 14 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
being obligated to provide capital; of Raju being required to bring in amounts
to cover losses that arose from expenses that had been capitalised historically,
suddenly being passed through the profit and loss account; and of such
expenses being significantly owed to interest purportedly accruing to none
other than Mayank’s own entities. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal is the best
judge of the material before it and as the master of the evidence, is best placed
to rule on the quantity and quality of evidence. Factoring all that in, the
Learned Arbitral Tribunal is best placed to formulate protective measures.
The Learned Arbitral Tribunal has done just that. Unless such measures are
perverse and implausible such that no reasonable person would take such a
view, the Section 37 Court ought not to substitute the Learned Arbitral
Tribunal’s view with its own view.
29. Mayank’s stance that the creation of a trust shaved Raju off all
protective provisions in the LLP Agreement falls in the ambit of post litem
motam (words used after the litigation arose). Mayank has purported that
realisation dawned on him much later to contend that Raju's entitlement as a
partner had come to an end. All these factors taken together must inform the
Learned Arbitral Tribunal’s assessment of the protection necessary under
Section 17 of the Act. I have already dealt with the aforesaid contention in my
other judgements referred to above. Solely to avoid prolixity, I am not
extracting from those judgements. In any case, the limited question raised in
Page 15 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
the captioned proceedings falls within the narrow confines of permissible
interference under Section 37 of the Act, read with the primary ground of
assault by Mr. Seervai on the Impugned Order, namely, that the Impugned
Order has grossly misread the order dated July 20, 2022.
30. In my opinion, it would be a mockery of Section 17 of the Act, if amidst
such a trenchant dispute in arbitration, a significant portion of the prime asset
of Vidhi LLP were permitted to be alienated and that through convoluted
structured transactions, the import of which is not even discernible in the
manner in which they are presented. Even if one were to take Mr. Seervai’s
,
submission at the highest namely that Mayank was not obliged to share the
material based on which the convoluted agreements through Ultra had been
executed by Vidhi LLP, after having been directed to share all necessary
information, Mayank’s conduct does not inspire confidence to let such
transaction be implemented.
31. The Learned Arbitral Tribunal is fully entitled to protect Raju and
ensure that even assuming for the sake of argument that such an agreement is
otherwise tenable by invoking the majority principle, it would be totally a
mockery of the scheme of preservation of subject matter of arbitration
agreement to allow the transaction to be completed. Far from being a fair
protective interim measure, it would be a measure that would undermine the
substratum of Vidhi LLP.
Page 16 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
32. In my opinion, there is no perversity in the understanding articulated by
the Learned Arbitral Tribunal, whether or not one invokes the history and
legacy of the order dated July 20, 2022. That apart, one cannot ignore the fact
that the order dated July 20, 2022 was passed at an early stage of the
arbitration proceedings. Four years have gone by since then, and the parties
have kept the Learned Arbitral Tribunal intensely busy with multiple Interim
Applications. By this stage, the conduct of the parties is as clear as daylight to
the Learned Arbitral Tribunal and the measure and degree of protection that
is necessary, is fully discernible to it.
33. If nearly half of the Subject Land were permitted to be disposed of in the
cloak-and-dagger manner as is discernible from the redacted instruments,
nothing may survive in the arbitral award even if the ultimate decision were to
go in favour of Raju. The strong prima facie case in Raju's favour has been well
articulated in the Impugned Order. He is the pre-agreed working partner for
all purposes and is entitled to participate in the decisions of Vidhi LLP, which
itself is a special purpose vehicle holding the Subject Land.
34. Taking all these factors into account, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal is
the best judge for fashioning the interim measure. The sale and disposal or
even creation of third party rights over such a significant component of the
only asset of Vidhi LLP can have far-reaching repercussions and therefore, the
Learned Arbitral Tribunal was legitimately satisfied that such an approach
Page 17 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
would be foolhardy and would run counter to the scheme of Section 17 of the
Act.
35. In these circumstances, it is clear to me that the reading of the order
dated July 20, 2022 is not the sole basis of the Impugned Order. The
Impugned Order, needless to say, presents a fair and appropriate reading of
the threat and danger to the subject matter of the arbitration agreement,
which the Learned Arbitral Tribunal is best placed to protect.
36. It is well settled law that an appeal is to be regarded as a continuation of
the original proceeding, and unless there is a statutory requirement to the
contrary, the powers of the appellate forum are co-extensive with the power of
1
a forum whose adjudication is under appeal . Therefore, it is now trite law
that when this Court exercises its jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act, its
power to interfere may only be exercised in the same manner in which the
power to interfere is exercisable under Section 34 of the Act. Equally, an
appellate Court exercising the power under Section 37 of the Act to review the
exercise of discretion by an Arbitral Tribunal would be well guided by the
2
principles set out by the Supreme Court in Wander vs. Antox to interfere only
if there is something perverse or implausible in the exercise of discretion by
the Learned Arbitral Tribunal. The following extract would suffice:
1
Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT – 1991 Supp 2 SCC 744
2
Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India (P) Ltd. – 1990 Supp SCC 727
Page 18 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
14. The appeals before the Division Bench were against the exercise of
discretion by the Single Judge. In such appeals, the appellate court will not
interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and
substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to
have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the court
had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of
interlocutory injunctions. An appeal against exercise of discretion is said to be
an appeal on principle. Appellate court will not reassess the material and seek
to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the court below if the
one reached by that court was reasonably possible on the material. The
appellate court would normally not be justified in interfering with the exercise
of discretion under appeal solely on the ground that if it had considered the
matter at the trial stage it would have come to a contrary conclusion. If the
discretion has been exercised by the trial court reasonably and in a judicial
manner the fact that the appellate court would have taken a different view may
not justify interference with the trial court's exercise of discretion.
[Emphasis Supplied]
37. In a plethora of judgements, in particular, those under Section 37 of the
Act, when considering a challenge to orders passed under Section 17 of the Act,
Wander vs. Antox has been followed and reiterated multiple times. Therefore,
the Petition is completely devoid of merit. Considering the nature of the
factual matrix , this is a fit case for costs to follow the event.
38. However, considering that the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has concluded
hearings and would be best placed to adjust costs across the parties, I leave it
Page 19 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::
Judge -13-CARBP-33472-2025 - .docx
to the Learned Arbitral Tribunal to factor in costs incurred in this round of
litigation as well, when it assesses costs in the arbitration proceedings.
39. Considering the sheer volume of Interim Applications that have been
pursued in these proceedings, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal is requested to
call for detailed statements of costs in respect of each and every round of
litigation , including further Appeals from interlocutory orders passed by it, so
that the commercial reality of costs is truly brought to bear depending on the
assessment of the same by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal.
40. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the Petition is
dismissed .
41. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this Judgement shall be
taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.
[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]
Page 20 of 20
JUNE 8, 2026
Rutuja Borse
::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2026 11:46:35 :::