Synopsis

The developer challenged an arbitral award arising from a development agreement with a public charitable trust. The arbitrator held that the trust’s termination notice was “illegal” (not in accordance with the contract) but refused to grant specific performance to the developer, instead directing the developer to hand over possession of the property to the trust and ordering the trust to refund the consideration paid with interest. The developer argued that the award was perverse and contradictory – if the termination was illegal, the agreement subsisted and specific performance should have been granted. The Bombay High Court dismissed the Section 34 petition, holding that the arbitrator’s findings were plausible and not inherently contradictory; the core essential term of delivering 32,000 sq. ft. of redeveloped area was not capable of specific performance because the developer was not ready and willing to perform that term. The court also rejected objections on arbitrability under the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act and on lack of permission from the Charity Commissioner.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction)
Coram: Somasekhar Sundaresan, J.
Date: April 6, 2026
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:8142
Core Law: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 (setting aside arbitral award); Specific Relief Act, 1963; Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882; Indian Easements Act, 1882.

2. Legal Framework

• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 34 – limited grounds for setting aside an arbitral award (patent illegality, perversity, public policy, etc.).

• Specific Relief Act, 1963: Section 16(c) – readiness and willingness essential for specific performance.

• Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882: Section 41 – exclusive jurisdiction over eviction of licensees.

• Indian Easements Act, 1882: Section 55 – license necessary for exercise of a right implied from grant.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.