Mitual Dhiraj Shah vs Zee Infra Projects Private Limited — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

Mitual Dhiraj Shah vs Zee Infra Projects Private Limited — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Under the Section 9 petition, Respondent No. 1-Developer is directed to hand over possession of the redeveloped premises attributable to premises owned by Ms. Bharti Shah to the Petitioners no later than June 25, 2025 at 12:00 noon, with requisite documents demonstrating title; undertakings recorded on both sides regarding estate/third-party claims; handover subject to outcome of the Developer's suit and without discharging any mutual dues; matter listed for reporting compliance on June 26, 2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether Respondent No. 1-Developer must hand over possession of the redeveloped premises to the Petitioners notwithstanding its pending suit for recovery of damages for delay in vacating. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the suit was instituted by the Developer itself, it is for the Developer to seek appropriate reliefs in that suit; refusing to hand over the redeveloped premises amounts to the Developer granting itself a relief of attachment before a future potential judgment on a mere claim for damages, and is totally unacceptable.

Ratio / Principle

In view of the inordinate delay despite receipt of the occupation certificate in September 2021, possession of the premises is directed to be handed over no later than June 25, 2025 at 12:00 noon, with requisite documents demonstrating title being executed.

Key takeaways

Possession of the redeveloped premises attributable to the premises owned by Ms. Bharti Shah is directed to be handed over to the Petitioners no later than June 25, 2025, subject to the outcome in the Developer's suit should the Developer prosecute it.ratio¶7
The parties' statements were taken on record as undertakings given to the Court: Respondent No. 1-Developer would not be responsible for succession-related disputes or claims in relation to the estate of Ms. Bharti Shah, and the Petitioners would protect Respondent No. 1-Developer from any liability or costs arising from any third-party claims in this regard.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 9 — interim relief — redevelopment — Bombay HC (OOCJ), Somasekhar Sundaresan J., disposed of a S.9 petition by directing the developer (Respondent No. 1) to hand over possession of redeveloped premises attributable to premises owned by Ms. Bharti Shah to the Petitioners no later than June 25, 2025 at 12:00 noon with requisite title documents. Held: the Developer's stance of handing over possession only to a Court Receiver because it has itself instituted a suit for recovery of damages for delay in vacating is 'totally unacceptable' — 'Not handing over the redeveloped premises amounts to granting oneself a relief of attachment before a future potential judgement and that too on a claim for damages'; it is for the Developer to seek reliefs in its own suit. Occupation certificate was stated to have been received on September 9, 2021, yet possession remained undelivered — inordinate delay. Handover is subject to the outcome in the Developer's suit if prosecuted; statements recorded as undertakings — Developer not responsible for succession-related disputes/estate-of-Ms.-Bharti-Shah claims, Petitioners to protect Developer from third-party liability or costs. Handing over possession shall not discharge any dues claimable by either party; each party free to pursue its rights; compliance listed June 26, 2025.

907-ARBP-32-2025 copy.docx

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

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 32 OF 2025

SHRADDHA KAMLESH TALEKAR

Digitally signed by SHRADDHA KAMLESH TALEKAR Date: 2025.06.13 13:14:19 +0530

Mitual Dhiraj Shah & Anr. Vs

… Petitioners

ZEE Infra Projects Private Limited & Anr. .. Respondents

Mr. Rubin Vakil a/w Tatsat Gor i/b Shyam K. Singh, for Petitioners.

Mr. Jugal Haria i/b Rajesh S. Sharma and Associates, for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Swapnil Sandim , for Respondent No. 2.

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

Date : June 11, 2025

P. C.

This is a Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996 (“ the Act ”).

Having heard the parties, it is evident that the possession of the redeveloped premises is yet to be handed over to the Petitioners, whose mother had vacated the premises that went into a redevelopment. The occupation certificate is said to have been received way back on September 9, 2021.

Page 1 of 4 June 11, 2025

Shraddha

907-ARBP-32-2025 copy.docx

Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1-Developer submits that he would be willing to hand over the possession only to a Court Receiver because he has instituted a suit for recovery of damages for the delay in the mother of the Petitioners having handed over the premises.

This proposition is totally unacceptable. If a suit has been instituted by the Developer, it is for the Developer to seek appropriate reliefs in that suit. Not handing over the redeveloped premises amounts to granting oneself a relief of attachment before a future potential judgement and that too on a claim for damages.

In these circumstances, considering that there has been an inordinate delay in handing over the premises despite the occupation certificate having been received way back in September 2021, it was put to the Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1-Developer as to the deadline by which he would be willing to hand over the premises. In response, he would submit that he would hand over the premises within 15 days.

Consequently, the possession of the premises shall be handed over no later than June 25, 2025 , at 12:00 noon, with the requisite documents to demonstrate title being executed.

Page 2 of 4 June 11, 2025

Shraddha

907-ARBP-32-2025 copy.docx

Needless to say, all this would be subject to outcome in the suit, should the Respondent No. 1-Developer prosecute the same. Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1-Developer also submits that he would not be responsible for any succession related disputes and any claims made in relation to the estate of Ms. Bharti Shah, the mother of the Petitioners. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that they would protect Respondent No. 1-Developer from any liability or costs arising from any claims from any third-party whatsoever in this regard. Taking these statements on record as undertakings given to the Court, it is directed that possession of the redeveloped premises attributable to the premises owned by Ms. Bharti Shah shall be handed over to the Petitioners no later than June 25, 2025 .

This order has been dictated in open Court and any delay in the upload of this order shall not come in the way of the obligation to comply with these directions.

Each party is at liberty to pursue its respective rights as available in law. Handing over of the possession shall not discharge any dues that may be claimed by either party against the other in such proceedings as they are advised to initiate.

Page 3 of 4 June 11, 2025

Shraddha

907-ARBP-32-2025 copy.docx

The Petition is finally disposed of in the aforesaid terms. List on June 26, 2025 under the caption “ For Reporting Compliance ”.

All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order, shall be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s website.

[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

Page 4 of 4 June 11, 2025

Shraddha