- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29899 WP No. 17404 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 17404 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MR. NIKHIL THAKER S/OF LATE SRI MAHENDRA JAMDAS THAKER, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 1, ABDUL RASUL AVENUE, KALIGHAT, KOLKATA - 700 026 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SWAROOP, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NEL HOLDINGS SOUTH LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS SATCHMO HOLDINGS LTD.), A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.110, A WING, ANDREWS BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MR.K.B.SWAMY 2. NITESH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, NEL HOLDINGS SOUTH LTD., (NOW KNOWN AS SATCHMO ® Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29899 WP No. 17404 of 2026 HOLDINGS LTD.), NO 110, A WING, ANDREWS BUILDING, BENGALURU -560 001 3. KAMALA DEVI, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SRI MEWARAM R. SHAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 4/9, JAMUNA NIVAS, CRESCENT ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS, BENGALURU- 560 001. 4. MANJU PRAKASH, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SRI MEWARAM R.SHAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT 113/114, PAL LINK ROAD, SHYAM NAGAR, JODHPUR - 342 003 5. LALITADEVI GAUTAMCHAND DARIWAL, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SRI MEWARAM R. SHAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT RUSHIKA APARTMENT, SHAHIBAUG, AHMEDABAD - 380 004 6. SARITA, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SRI MEWARAM R. SHAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 202, 'SAI APARTMENTS', SURVEYOR STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU -560 004 7. DEEPA RAHUL, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF LATE SRI MEWARAM R. SHAH, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29899 WP No. 17404 of 2026 AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 5, 'KANCHAN KRUPA', SERPENTINE ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU -560 020 8. SURAJMAL MALOO, S/O. RAMLALJI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 9. PREM KUMAR MALOO, S/O. SURAJ MALOO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 10. MOOLCHAND MALOO, SON OF MEWARAM R. SHAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 11. BHARATH KUMAR, S/O. MEWARAM R. SHAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.8-11 ARE ARE RESIDING AT 'SURAJ TEXTILE AGENCY', NO.16/17, 3RD FLOOR, SHARMA COMPLEX, CHICKPET, BANGALORE -560 053 12. KUKKAJE RAMAKRISHNA BHAT, SOLE ARBITRATOR, DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (RETD.), NO. 116/5-1, 2ND FLOOR, 11TH CROSS, NEXT TO UNION BANK, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU -560 003 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER CALLING FOR THE RECORDS OF COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29899 WP No. 17404 of 2026 PETITION NO. 04/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE 10TH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, AND QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.06.2026 (ANNEXURE A), THEREBY DIRECTING THAT THE PETITIONER BE IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL RESPONDENT NO. 7 IN COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 04/2023. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11.06.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CAV ORDER Aggrieved by the order passed on in I.A.No.8 in Commercial Arbitration Petition No.4/2023 dated 08.06.2026 by the X Additional District and Sessions Judge and Designated Commercial Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, the petitioner/impleading applicant is before this Court. 2. The facts of the case are that respondent Nos.3 to 11 and respondent No.1 entered into a Joint Development Agreement with respect to the Schedule A properties. On the same date, a General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of respondent No.2. The petitioner was interested in purchasing a villa in the ‘Nitesh Key Biscayne’ Project and his interest was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29899 WP No. 17404 of 2026 recognized vide letter of novation, whereby the petitioner was recognized as the purchaser of Villa No.RS-31, a 4 BHK unit having built up area of approximately 5,266.80 sq.ft., to be constructed on the Schedule A properties in place of the earlier allotee. An Agreement of Sale was executed in favour of the petitioner with respect to Villa No.RS-31 by respondent No.1. In spite of repeated follow-up, respondent No.1 failed to provide any concrete update on commencement of the development of Schedule B property. The petitioner was informed by respondent No.1 that there are serious disputes between respondent No.1 and the land owner and that the matter had been referred to arbitration. On 31.01.2023, an award was passed partly allowing the claims of the land owner and rejecting the claim of respondent No.1. On 09.03.2023, the award was corrected under as Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). 3. Aggrieved by the said award, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed Com.A.P.No.4/2023 under Section 34 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings before the Courts) Rules, 2001 before the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29899 WP No. 17404 of 2026 Commercial Court, Bangalore Rural. The petitioner filed Com.A.A.No.137/2026 seeking an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the schedule properties to third parties from creating any rights over the schedule properties contrary to the rights of the petitioner. An ad-interim order was granted restraining the respondents from alienating or creating any encumbrances over the schedule B property until further orders. The petitioner filed an application to impleaded him as additional respondent No.7 in Com.A.P.No.4/2023 which came to be dismissed by order impugned. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/ impleading applicant submits that Section 9 proceedings in Com.A.A.No.137/2026 are limited to interim protective relief pending the constitution of an arbitral Tribunal in a future arbitration between the petitioner and the respondents and they do not and cannot resolve the substantive question of whether the JDA and GPA are valid and subsisting which will be decided in the present petition filed under Section 34 of the Act. If the petition is decided without the petitioner being - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29899 WP No. 17404 of 2026 heard, the interim injunction in Com.A.A.No.137/2026 will be rendered infructuous and meaningless. It is submitted that allowing the petitioner to participate in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Act avoids multiplicity of litigation and ensures consistent adjudication by the same Court on the same property rights which is a foundational principle underlying Order I Rule 10(2) of CPC. It is submitted that if the petitioner is impleaded, no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. It is submitted that the impugned order is inconsistent with the ad-interim order granted by the same Court in Com.A.A.No.137/2026. Further, the impleadment of the petitioner does not expand the Section 34 challenge. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The appeal that is pending is filed against an award passed by the Arbitrator. The petitioner has already filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act and there is an injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or creating any encumbrances on the scheduled property until further orders. By virtue of the said order, the petitioner's rights are protected. The petitioner wants to implead himself in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29899 WP No. 17404 of 2026 the arbitration proceedings pending between the developer and the land owner. The arbitration clause exists solely within the joint development agreement between the land owner and the developer. The purchaser is completely outside the agreement. The purchasers contract is with the developer. But not with the landlord. The third party buyer’s right is purely derivative against the developer. If the developer breaches the contract, the purchaser’s remedy is to sue the developer. Third-party property buyers are strangers to the primary dispute. If every apartment purchaser is impleaded in the arbitration proceedings between the landowner and the builder, the very sanctity and efficacy of the arbitral process would stand dilated. Arbitration is founded upon party autonomy and consent. Permitting the impleadment of numerous apartment purchasers, who are not parties to the arbitration agreement, would transform a consensual and private dispute resolution mechanism into a multifaceted representative proceeding, thereby defeating the very objective of arbitration, namely efficiency, expectation, confidentiality and limited party participation. It would enlarge the scope of dispute and undermine the contractual framework agreed upon by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29899 WP No. 17404 of 2026 parties. Any intervention of third parties must be justified by a legally recognized exception and not merely by the existence of a commercial or factual interest in the outcome of the dispute. Arbitration cannot be converted into a forum for adjudication of claims of all persons who may have an indirect or consequential interest in the subject matter of the dispute. 6. Furthermore, the petitioner herein had filed an application under Section 9 of the Act against the respondents seeking necessary reliefs. The impleading applicant has already enforced his rights before the competent Court and obtained an ex parte ad interim injunction order. As the rights of the impleading applicant are protected in Com.A.A.No.137/2026, the presence of the impleading applicant in the present proceedings is not necessary. The trial Court observed that the original JDA and GPA is cancelled by the Tribunal vide award dated 30.01.2023 in A.C.No.97/2019 and the impleading applicant has got no right to put forth his grievance before this Court and even in the absence of the impleading applicant, effective decree can be passed. Further, the impleading applicant can always pursue his remedies against his vendor. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29899 WP No. 17404 of 2026 7. In the light of the above discussion, the trial court had rightly considered and dismissed the application. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. ii. All I.As. in this petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1