Rajeev Manmohan Gupta v. Brijwasi Builders

Bombay HC20 Jan 2026CARBP/15/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 37 challenge to Section 17 interim order; Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996; interim measures; security over constructed area; Joint Affidavit; retired partners; refund of capital contribution; partnership capital; Brijwasi Builders; illusory relief; no construction progress; liberty to approach arbitral tribunal; re-assessment of interlocutory measure; Bombay High Court Commercial Division; CARBP 15/2025; Somasekhar Sundaresan J.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the Impugned Order; liberty to the Petitioners to approach the learned Arbitral Tribunal to indicate that the relief envisaged in the Impugned Order has turned out to be illusory; Petition finally disposed of. ¶¶22

Rajeev Manmohan Gupta vs Brijwasi Builders — Arbitration | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the Impugned Order passed by the sole arbitrator warranted interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. +1 more

¶¶21

Court's answer

No case for an interference with the Impugned Order was made out; the Court declined to interfere with it.

¶¶22

Ratio / Principle

The factual position of no progress on the offered property would at best enable the Petitioners to go back to the Tribunal to re-assess the interlocutory measure protecting the subject matter of the arbitration.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

Liberty was given to the Petitioners to approach the learned Arbitral Tribunal to indicate that the relief envisaged in the Impugned Order has turned out to be illusory.ratio¶¶22
Nothing has been expressed on the merits in favour of either party.obiter¶¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Commercial Division), Somasekhar Sundaresan J, April 23, 2026 — Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 15 of 2025, a challenge under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to the sole arbitrator's Impugned Order dated September 21, 2024 passed on the Claimants' Section 17 application. The Petitioners, retired partners of Respondent No. 1 Brijwasi Builders (having invested Rs. 7,83,00,000/-, with capital of Rs. 5,58,00,000/- at retirement on March 31, 2022), sought refund of their capital contribution. Pursuant to a Joint Affidavit of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, a constructed area had been marked as security in favour of the Petitioners/Claimants; counsel submitted there had been no progress or construction, rendering the relief illusory. Held: such factual position would at best enable the Petitioners to go back to the Tribunal to re-assess the interlocutory measure; no case for interference with the Impugned Order was made out; liberty was given to approach the Arbitral Tribunal; the Petition was finally disposed of, with nothing expressed on the merits.

¶1

59-CARBP-15-2025.doc

¶2

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

¶3

COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 15 OF 2025

¶4

Rajeev Manmohan Gupta …Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Brijwasi Builders …Respondents

¶7

Mr. Nirman Sharma i/b Mr. Manoj Agre, for the Petitioners. Mr. Naresh Jain a/w Ms. Priyanshi Jain, for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 & 4.

¶8

Mr. Dishang Shah a/w Ms. Kinjal Gogri h/f Mr. Piyush Shah, for Respondent No. 2.

¶9

CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : APRIL 23, 2026.

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

The challenge in this Petition is to the Impugned Order dated September 21, 2024, passed by the sole arbitrator in the Application taken out by the Claimants under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 ( “the Act” ). The Petitioners are admittedly retired parterns, who had invested a sum of Rs. 7,83,00,000/- in the capital of the Partnership Firm, namely, Brijwasi Builders, Respondent No. 1. They had been inducted by

¶12

Gitalaxmi

¶13

Page 1 of 3 APRIL 23, 2026

¶14

59-CARBP-15-2025.doc

¶15

and under the Deed of Admission of new partners read with a Reconstituted Partnership Deed both dated December 1, 2021.

¶16

Disputes between the parties essentially centre on the claim by the Petitioners for the refund of the capital contribution invested in the Partnership Firm, pursuant to their retirement, by which date (March 31, 2022) the capital of the Petitioners in Respondent No. 1 Partnership Firm was Rs. 5,58,00,000/-.

¶17

This being the subject matter of the dispute, the learned Arbitrator observed from the record that the project in question of the erstwhile partner of Respondent No. 1, Mr. Jainarayan Agarwal, was underway and pursuant to the Joint Affidavit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 with the Tribunal, a certain constructed area was marked as security in favour of the Petitioners/Claimants. The learned Arbitrator accepted this position and passed the interim order Two years later.

¶18

Mr. Nirman Sharma, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, states there has been no progress whatsoever in nature in connection with the offered property. He submits that no construction has taken place and the relief to the Petitioners has

¶19

Gitalaxmi

¶20

59-CARBP-15-2025.doc

¶21

turned out to be illusory. This factual position would at best enable the Petitioners to go back to the Tribunal to re-assess the interlocutory measure to protect the subject matter of the arbitration. The Impugned Order, on its own showing, calls for this Court to interfere in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 37 of the Act.

¶22

No case for an interference with the Impugned Order has been made out. Therefore, without any interference, giving liberty to the Petitioners to approach the learned Arbitral Tribunal to indicate that the relief envisaged in the Impugned Order has turned out to be illusory, this Petition is finally disposed of .

¶23

Needless to state that nothing has been expressed on the merits in favour of either party.

¶24

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.

¶25

[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

¶26

Page 3 of 3 APRIL 23, 2026

¶27

Gitalaxmi

¶28

Digitally signed by GITALAXMI GITALAXMI KRISHNA KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR KOTAWADEKAR Date: 2026.05.02 14:06:23 +0530

Rajeev Manmohan Gupta v. Brijwasi Builders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Manmohan Gupta v. Brijwasi Builders

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Joy Builders vs Mayadevi Shubhkaran Makharia

Vinod Dilip MohitePatil vs Ghanshyam R Upadhyay

Khimji Lakhamshi Shah vs Kalpana Rajendra Gonjari

Skm Steels Limited vs Lodha Developers Limited (Formerly known as Macrotech Developers Limited)

State Bank of India Employees Raag Vihar Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Aditya Developers

Shresth Detective and Securities Private Limited vs Fis Payment Solutions and Services India Private Limited