Dismissed¶36

Tasneem Ashfaque Dadarkar v. Gaurang v Parekh

Bombay HC24 Jun 2025ARBAP/124/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act; non-signatory cannot invoke arbitration clause; Bombay High Court, Bharati Dangre, J.; Development Agreement 31/01/2025; Bay View Co-Operative Housing Society; M/s GVP Realty; Clause 25 sole arbitrator; flat occupants 801/802 and 501/502; wife of Respondent No.4; restoration of conjugal rights Family Court; DV Act; arbitration applications dismissed; interim applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

The arbitration clause covers only the relationship between the parties to the Development Agreement; since the Applicants are not signatories to the Development Agreement, they cannot invoke arbitration merely because the clause exists in the Agreement dated 31/01/2025. ¶34

Tasneem Ashfaque Dadarkar vs Gaurang v Parekh — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether persons who are not signatories to the Development Agreement can invoke its Clause 25 arbitration and obtain appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

¶34

Key takeaways

Observation made while dismissing the applications: the wife-applicant, who alongwith her children occupies the subject flats, is entitled to invoke other remedies in law if she claims entitlement in the flats even after re-development and some sort of compensation.obiter¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Coram: Bharati Dangre, J.; decided 13th November, 2025. Two applications under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act (Arbitration Application No.221 of 2025 by Aijaz Ashfaque Dadarkar & Anr.; Arbitration Application No.124 of 2025 by Tasneem Ashfaque Dadarkar) sought appointment of an arbitrator under Clause 25 of the Development Agreement dated 31/01/2025 between Bay View Co-Operative Housing Society and developer M/s GVP Realty. The applicants, occupying Flat Nos.801/802 and Flat Nos.501/502 in the society, are family members of Respondent No.4 (who signed the Development Agreement) but are not themselves signatories. Held: the arbitration clause covers only the relationship between the parties to the Development Agreement, and non-signatories cannot invoke arbitration merely on the basis that the clause exists; accordingly both applications were dismissed and pending Interim Application Nos.5786 and 5884 of 2025 stood disposed of. In passing, the court observed that the wife-applicant, in occupation with her children, is entitled to invoke other remedies in law for her claimed entitlement in the flats after re-development and some sort of compensation.

¶1

1/3 36 ARBAP-221-25.odt

¶2

Salgaonkar

¶3

MANDIRA MILINDSALGAONKAR Digitally signed by MANDIRAMILIND SALGAONKARDate: 2025.11.15 11:11:23 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.221 of 2025

¶6

WITH

¶7

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5786 OF 2025

¶8

Aijaz Ashfaque Dadarkar & Anr. .. Applicants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Gaurang A. Parekh & Ors. .. Respondents

¶11

WITH

¶12

ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO.124 of 2025

¶13

WITH

¶14

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.5884 OF 2025

¶15

Tasneem Ashfaque Dadarkar

¶16

.. Applicant

¶17

Versus

¶18

Gaurang A. Parekh & Ors. .. Respondents

¶19

Ms.Anjali Joshi i/b Atif Shaikh for the Applicant in ARBAP/221/25.

¶20

Ms.Drishti Khurana i/b Mr.Atif Shaikh for the Applicant in ARBAP/124/25.

¶21

Mr.Aditya Udeshi with Mr.Rahul Sanghvi i/b M/s Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶22

Mr.Karl Tamboly with Mr.Cyrus Zal, Mr.Tejas Deshpande and Mr.Santosh Warkar i/b Lawfort Advocate for the Respondent No.4.

¶23

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶24

DATE : 13^th NOVEMBER, 2025

¶25

2/3 36 ARBAP-221-25.odt

¶26

P.C:-

¶27

A Development Agreement entered between Bay View Co-Operative Housing Society and M/s GVP Realty, a Developer, on 31/01/2025, comprise of a clause providing for arbitration in form of Clause No.25, which reads thus :-

¶28

“ 25. ARBITRATION

¶29

If any disputes or differences arise between the parties hereto arising out of this Agreement, or as to the rights, obligations, liabilities and duties of the Parties hereto or as to the interpretation of this Agreement, the same shall be referred for adjudication to a Tribunal of one Arbitrator as in terms of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Award of the Arbitrator so appointed shall be final and binding on all the Parties i.e. the Society/its Members and the Developer. The Arbitration proceeding shall be conducted in Mumbai which will be in English language and shall be in accordance with contained in that behalf in the Arbitration with the provisions contained in that behalf in the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, as amended from time to time.”

¶30

The two Applications filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, on invocation of the above arbitration clause, seek appointment of the Arbitrator.

¶31

Arbitration Application No.221 of 2025, being filed by the son and daughter of Respondent No.4, claim that the Applicants are in occupation of flat Nos.801/802 in the CoOperative Housing Society, whereas the Applicant in Arbitration Application No.124 of 2025 is the wife of Respondent No.4 and is in occupation of Flat Nos.501/502 in the same society. It is the claim of the Applicants that they are in possession of the said premises since considerable length of time and there is a prevailing discord between Respondent No.4 and his wife and when the Development Agreement was entered with the society, it is signed by Respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 being estranged from his wife (Applicant-

¶32

3/3 36 ARBAP-221-25.odt

¶33

Tasneem), she has instituted proceedings for restoration of conjugal rights before the Family Court and also under DV Act.

¶34

It is in this background the Applicants have invoked arbitration and seek appointment of an Arbitrator for making over the dispute to the Arbitrator, but as this relief is strongly opposed by learned counsel Mr.Tamboly and I find substance in his submission that the arbitration clause clearly cover the relationship between the parties to the Development Agreement and since the Applicants are not the signatories to the Development Agreement, there is no question of they invoking arbitration, merely on the basis that arbitration clause exists in the Development Agreement dated 31/01/2025.

¶35

The counsel for the Applicant-Tasneem has seriously argued about the maintainability of the Application, as according to her, Applicant i.e.. the wife of the Respondent No.4 has no other way to enforce her right and the Applicants continue to reside in the subject flats, which are subjected to the re-development under the Development Agreement, I feel that the wife is entitled to invoke other remedies in law, if she claim her entitlement in the flats even after its re-development and also some sort of compensation, as she alongwith her children is in occupation of the subject flats.

¶36

Since the Applications cannot be entertained, same are dismissed.

¶37

All the pending Interim Applications stand disposed of.

¶38

(BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Tasneem Ashfaque Dadarkar v. Gaurang v Parekh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tasneem Ashfaque Dadarkar v. Gaurang v Parekh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ajay Hase vs Gayatri Infratech

Peter Rodrigues Vs Goa Land Realtors Club Pvt. Ltd. Rep. by Daphne Sequeira and 4 Ors.

Angela Melba Da Gama Pinto (Dec) Rep. by His Lrs., Vs Anna Rita Rosalia Sulochana Vas and 6 Ors.

Tata Motors Ltd. vs Bhagyodaya Trokhos Pvt. Ltd.

Ltimindtre Limited vs Eros International Media Ltd.

Mitcon Credentia Trusteeship Services vs Haridate Real Estate Private Limited