Bombay HC – Section 9 Interim Relief Denied to Developer Seeking Profiteering Advantage
Section 9 petition of the Developer for stay to the dated 25.10.2025 of the respondent no.1 society terminating the development agreement dated 30.12.20214 and injunction from appointing another developer.
The Developer has also filed section 11 petition for appointment of arbitrator.
Therefore, merely because specific performance of Development Agreement can be granted by this Court in a given case, it would not mean that Petitioner would be automatically entitled to any interim measures under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act.
It cannot, therefore, be contended that a developer once appointed to develop municipal tenanted property can be never be changed.
In my view, attempts on the part of the Petitioner to handover Project to another developer and conducting negotiations clearly indicates that the objective behind retaining the Project is merely to sell the same to another developer. Prima-facie, it appears that the Petitioner wants to profiteer at the cost of the members of the Society. This would be yet another reason for this Court not to grant any equitable relief in favour of the Petitioner.
Judgment dated 23.1.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Commercial Arbitration Petition (L) No.36633 of 2025 with Commercial Arbitration Application (L) No.37280 of 2025 of ISON Builders LLP Vs. Om Sai Ram Cooperative Housing Society (Proposed) and others

