Facts
The Respondent Society, consisting of 869 units in 46 dilapidated buildings constructed in 1957, appointed the Petitioner as a developer in 2013
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4A Development Agreement (DA) was executed in 2015 and a second DA in 2016
Source reference: p. 4, para. 4Despite the passage of 13 years, the project failed to commence.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 6The Society terminated the Petitioner in September 2023, but the Managing Committee purportedly withdrew this termination in April 2024
Source reference: p. 5, para. 6However, in an AGM on 30 September 2024, the Society formally reaffirmed the termination
Source reference: p. 11, para. 19-21The Petitioner obtained a revised NOC from the Divisional Joint Registrar in April 2025 by suppressing the termination, which was subsequently set aside by the State Government (Minister of Co-operation) in December 2025
Source reference: p. 12-13, para. 23-24The Petitioner filed this Section 9 petition to restrain the Society from executing a new DA with a third-party developer
Source reference: p. 2, para. 3Issues
1. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to interim measures to restrain the Society from appointing a new developer despite a 13-year delay and lack of a valid NOC
Source reference: p. 21, para. 332. Whether a Development Agreement can be unilaterally terminated in the absence of a specific termination clause
Source reference: p. 18, para. 313. Whether the Petitioner approached the court with clean hands and necessary alacrity
Source reference: p. 13, para. 24; p. 17, para. 30Law Applied
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, regarding interim measures, and Section 11 for the appointment of an arbitrator
Source reference: p. 1-2Development Agreements do not confer ownership like Agreements for Sale and are thus not subject to the same restrictions on unilateral termination
Source reference: p. 18-19, para. 31Establishing that a developer’s right to profit is subservient to the members' right to safe housing.
Source reference: p. 21, para. 33Reasoning
The court found the Petitioner guilty of gross delay, noting that "not even a single brick" was moved in 13 years
Source reference: p. 22, para. 32The court rejected the Petitioner's justification that delay was due to a lack of 70% member consents, noting this was a new plea inconsistent with earlier claims of ill-health and regulatory changes
Source reference: p. 15-16, paras. 26-29Critically, the court observed that the Petitioner suppressed the Minister’s order dated 17 December 2025, which had invalidated the Petitioner's NOC
Source reference: p. 13, para. 24Applying the balance of convenience, the court reasoned that the Society members’ right to reside in safe homes outweighs the developer's commercial interest in earning profit, as any loss to the developer can be compensated via a monetary award in arbitration
Source reference: p. 21-22, paras. 33-35Holding
The court dismissed the Section 9 Petition, refusing to grant interim measures, holding that all three parameters (prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience) favored the Respondent-Society
Since the arbitration agreement was undisputed, the court appointed Mr. Amrut Joshi, Advocate, as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the underlying disputes. The request for a stay on the judgment was rejected
Source reference: p. 25-26, para. 38, 40Original Court PDF
Pioneer ConstructionvsSahakar Nagar Cooperative Housing Society
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in