HARSHAL ENTERPRISES vs Saritagram Cooperative Housing Society Ltd — CARBP/430/2026

Case under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 9. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 23rd April 2026.

CNR: HCBM020117482026

CASE DISPOSED

e-Filing Number

01-04-2026

Filing Number

CARBP/11748/2026

Filing Date

02-04-2026

Registration No

CARBP/430/2026

Registration Date

22-05-2026

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

23rd April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OFF

Acts & Sections

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 Section 9

Petitioner(s)

HARSHAL ENTERPRISES

Adv. AKSHAY R KAPADIA

Respondent(s)

Saritagram Cooperative Housing Society Ltd

Yogeshwar Bajaj

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

29-04-2026

FOR CIRCULATION

23-04-2026

FOR CIRCULATION

Orders

23-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE

The Bombay High Court granted Harshal Enterprises' Section 9 interim relief petition against Respondent No.2 (Yogeshwar Bajaj), the sole dissenting member among 64 cooperative housing society members who had approved a redevelopment agreement. The court held that majority members' adoption of the redevelopment resolution binds individual members, and dissenting members cannot raise individual grievances in arbitration proceedings. The court directed Respondent No.2 to surrender flat keys by 30 April 2026, with police assistance authorized if necessary, while permitting him to execute an alternate accommodation agreement within 3 months or forfeit financial redevelopment benefits to be held in interest-bearing deposits by the society. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court granted Harshal Enterprises' Section 9 interim relief petition against Respondent No.2 (Yogeshwar Bajaj), the sole dissenting member among 64 cooperative housing society members who had approved a redevelopment agreement. The court held that majority members' adoption of the redevelopment resolution binds individual members, and dissenting members cannot raise individual grievances in arbitration proceedings. The court directed Respondent No.2 to surrender flat keys by 30 April 2026, with police assistance authorized if necessary, while permitting him to execute an alternate accommodation agreement within 3 months or forfeit financial redevelopment benefits to be held in interest-bearing deposits by the society. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Explore other courts

Search Another Case