Relcon Infraprojects Ltd. vs Bhagwandas Gupta — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Relcon Infraprojects Ltd. vs Bhagwandas Gupta — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Findings in paragraph Nos. 116 to 119 and 125 of the impugned Award set aside with consent, with clarification that the cooperative court proceedings will continue in accordance with law, on their own merits, uninfluenced by the deletion; the qualification in paragraph No. 126 does not survive; Arbitration Petition No. 110 of 2025 and Interim Application No. 1185 of 2025 disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the caveat/directions in paragraph Nos. 116 to 119 and 125 of the impugned Award obstruct or prejudicially affect the proceedings before the cooperative court challenging the resolution passed by the Society dated 31 October 2021.

Court's answer

On consensus arrived at between the parties, and considering that the only objection to the Award was to the caveat in paragraph Nos. 116 to 119 and 125, the findings in those paragraphs of the impugned Award are set aside (deleted) with consent.

Ratio / Principle

Clarification recorded: the proceedings before the cooperative court will proceed in accordance with law and on their own merits, and the decision of the cooperative court will be uninfluenced by the fact that the findings in paragraph Nos. 116 to 119 and 125 stand deleted with consent of the parties.

Key takeaways

In view of the clarification given in the present order, the qualification recorded in paragraph No. 126 of the impugned Award while dismissing the claim and counter claim does not survive.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction — Arbitration Petition No. 110 of 2025 with Interim Application No. 1185 of 2025 (neutral citation 2026:BHC-OS:6055), Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., decided 7 March 2026: Relcon Infraprojects Ltd v. Bhagwandas Gupta. The petition challenged an arbitral Award dated 24 September 2024 solely to the extent of the caveat/directions in paragraphs 116 to 119 and 125, which operated in the event the Respondents (Claimants therein) succeeded in their challenge, before the cooperative court, to the resolution passed by the Society dated 31 October 2021. On consensus between the parties, the Court set aside with consent the findings in paragraphs 116 to 119 and 125, clarified that the cooperative court proceedings would continue in accordance with law and on their own merits and that the decision of the cooperative court would be uninfluenced by the deletion, held that the qualification in paragraph 126 (recorded while dismissing the claim and counter claim) did not survive, and disposed of the Arbitration Petition and the Interim Application.

2026:BHC-OS:6055

37 arbp 110-25.doc

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

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 110 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1185 OF 2025 IN

ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 110 OF 2025

Relcon Infraprojects Ltd ... Petitioner. Versus Bhagwandas Gupta ... Respondent.

Mr Aseem Naphade with Aneesa Cheema and Akanksha A. Mishra for the Petitioner.

Mr Udayan Jain a/w. Creesh Jain and Anay Jain for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr Amogh Singh a/w Deepanjali Mishra i/by Rahul Tiwari for Respondent No.3.

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : March 07, 2026

P.C. :

1. The Arbitration Petition was filed challenging the impugned Award dated 24^th September, 2024 to the extent of caveat recorded in paragraph Nos.116 to 119 and 125 of the impugned Award which issues certain directions in event, the Respondents who were the Claimants therein, succeed in their challenge to the resolution passed by the Society dated 31^st October, 2021.

2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties for sometime, as the anxiety of the Respondents-Claimants was that by virtue of the challenge by the Petitioners to the impugned Award, the proceedings

1 of 3

sa_mandawgad

37 arbp 110-25.doc

before the cooperative court are sought to be obstructed or prejudicely affected. Mr. Naphade, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that there is no question of obstructing or interfering with the proceedings before the cooperative court which challenges the resolution passed by the Society and the Developer is only concerned with the consequence which has been provided in the impugned award as recorded in the paragraph Nos. 116 to 119 and 125.

3. Upon query by this Court Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submits that the Award can be modified to delete paragraph Nos.116 to 119 and 125 subject to a clarification that the proceedings in the cooperative court will continue in accordance with law and the decision of the cooperative court will not be affected by the fact that the findings in paragraph nos.116 to 119 and 125 stand deleted.

4. In light of the consensus which has been arrived at between the parties and considering that the only objection to the award was to the caveat recorded in paragraph Nos.116 to 119 and 125, with consent the findings in paragraph Nos.116 to 119 and 125 of the impugned award are set aside with the clarification that the proceedings before the cooperative court will proceed in accordance with law and on its own merits and the decision of the cooperative

2 of 3

sa_mandawgad

37 arbp 110-25.doc

court will be uninfluenced by the fact that the findings in paragraph Nos.116 to 119 and 125 are deleted with consent of the parties.

5. Insofar as the observations in paragraph No.126 of the impugned Award is concerned, in view of the clarification given in the present order, the qualification while dismissing the claim and counter claim do not survive.

6. With these clarifications, the Arbitration Petition stands disposed of. Interim Application does not survive for consideration and same stands disposed of.

[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

3 of 3

sa_mandawgad Signed by: Sanjay A. Mandawgad Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 09/03/2026 18:07:22