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
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
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
FOR CIRCULATION
FOR CIRCULATION
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 29-04-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
| 23-04-2026 | FOR CIRCULATION |
Orders
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.
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
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts