KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT LTD VERITAS LEGAL vs GANGA JAMUNA MILAN CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD — CARBP/420/2026
Case under Arbitration Act 1940 Section 9. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 24th April 2026.
CNR: HCBM020114112026
e-Filing Number
28-03-2026
Filing Number
CARBP/11409/2026
Filing Date
30-Mar-2026
Registration No
CARBP/420/2026
Registration Date
22-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Bench Type
Single
Category
ARBITRATION ( 4 )
Sub-Category
Interim Relief ( 102 )
Judicial Branch
Original
Decision Date
24-Apr-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 27-May-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.KONARK STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS PVT LTD VERITAS LEGAL
Respondent(s)
-
1.GANGA JAMUNA MILAN CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD
-
2.BHARAT L HARWANI
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
24-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to developer Konark Structural Engineers in a redevelopment dispute, ordering two dissenting housing society members (Respondents 2 & 3) to vacate their flat by May 15, 2026, with police assistance if necessary. The court rejected their argument that the developer had not completed pre-vacation obligations, holding that pending litigation cannot delay redevelopment approved by the majority members, and provided that the dissenting members' financial benefits would be preserved through either direct payment or interest-bearing deposits pending their participation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
24-Apr-2026
For Circulation
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne
-
17-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF
-
10-Apr-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. MarneView PDF
-
30-Mar-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CARBP/420/2026
The Bombay High Court granted interim relief to developer Konark Structural Engineers in a redevelopment dispute, ordering two dissenting housing society members (Respondents 2 & 3) to vacate their flat by May 15, 2026, with police assistance if necessary. The court rejected their argument that the developer had not completed pre-vacation obligations, holding that pending litigation cannot delay redevelopment approved by the majority members, and provided that the dissenting members' financial benefits would be preserved through either direct payment or interest-bearing deposits pending their participation. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts