16-ARBP-420-25+F.doc Sayali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 420 OF 2025 Rohit Agarwal … Petitioner V/s. Sakshi Dant … Respondents WITH ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 9702 OF 2025 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 436 OF 2025 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO.435 OF 2025 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 428 OF 2026 WITH ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 437 OF 2025 Mr. Sanjiv A. Sawant with Abhishek Deshmukh WITH Bhakti Wast, for Petitioner. Mr. Darshit K. Jain i/b Mrs. Divya D. Jain with Arushi Gandhi, for Respondents 3 to 5. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : JULY, 31 2026 P.C.: 1. A prima facie consideration of the material placed on record indicates that the Development Agreement executed by the owners in favour of Respondent No. 1, the developer, contains an 1 SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Digitally signed by SAYALI DEEPAK UPASANI Date: 2026.07.31 17:12:04 +0530 16-ARBP-420-25+F.doc arbitration clause. It further appears that the Sale Deed executed by Respondent No. 1 in favour of the Petitioners also incorporates an arbitration clause. However, the owners are not parties to the said Sale Deed executed between Respondent No. 1 and the Petitioners. 2. Upon a prima facie assessment of the pleadings and documents on record, it appears that Respondent No. 1 has failed to discharge its contractual obligations. Consequently, the Petitioners have succeeded in establishing a prima facie case for continuation of the ad interim protection granted by this Court by its order dated 15 September 2025 as against Respondent No. 1. 3. However, insofar as Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, in the absence of any arbitration agreement binding the Petitioners and the said respondents, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, cannot adjudicate upon the Petitioners' substantive rights against them on merits. It shall, therefore, be open to the Petitioners to pursue such remedies against Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 as may be available to them in accordance with law before the competent forum. 4. In view of the foregoing discussion, and upon overall assessment of the material record, the following order is passed: i) The Petition is partly allowed. (ii) The ad interim relief granted by this Court by order dated 15 September 2025 against Respondent No. 1 is 2 16-ARBP-420-25+F.doc confirmed and shall continue to remain in force till the conclusion of the arbitral proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal, subject to any order that may be passed by the Arbitral Tribunal in accordance with law. (iii) Insofar as Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are concerned, the Petition stands disposed of with liberty to the Petitioners to avail such remedies as may be available to them in law before the appropriate forum. (iv) All rival contentions of the Petitioners and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 on the merits are expressly kept open for consideration before the appropriate forum, and no observations made in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of their respective claims. (v) It is clarified that the findings recorded in this order are prima facie in nature and have been made only for the purpose of deciding the present petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitral Tribunal, as well as any other competent forum, shall decide the proceedings independently and uninfluenced by any observations contained in this order. (vi) There shall be no order as to costs. (vii) The Petition is accordingly disposed of. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 3