MFA/9297/2025 of MR. JITESH DATTANI Vs M/S. ELEGANT PROPERTIES on 20 July 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter, 'A&C Act'] impugning an order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the LXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru [hereinafter, 'District Court'] in A.A.No.25004/2023.

2. The appellant filed the said application under Section 9 of the A&C Act, inter alia, praying that the respondents be restrained from alienating a residential flat No.1103, B Wing, Block-G, measuring 1405 square feet, located in the residential apartment known as Elegant Promenade. The appellant claimed that the said property is now known as WF48 and is located in Schedule A, B, and C properties as described in the said application.

3. It is the appellant's case that in the month of March, 2013, he made acquaintance with respondent No.2, who introduced himself as a realtor having rights to deal with properties being developed by various builders. The appellant claimed that respondent No.2 represented that he was authorised by several builders and

HC-KAR

developers to represent them and sell units in their projects. Relying upon the said representations, the appellant was persuaded to purchase a residential flat in the Elegant Four Seasons [hereinafter, 'Project'] being developed by respondent No.1. Pursuant thereto, the appellant paid an advance amount of ` 8 lakhs and was issued with an allotment letter dated 25.03.2013. The appellant is aggrieved as the said residential flat has not been delivered to him.

4. The appellant claimed that the project underwent a change and became part of a larger project. Consequently, on 08.04.2017, respondent No.1 [Elegant Properties] issued another allotment letter, allotting a 2.5 BHK apartment measuring 1405 square feet. The allotment letter also specified that the said allotment was not final and subject to further amendment (apartment number, wing and block).

5. The learned District Court rejected the appellant's application on the ground that the appellant had failed to establish that there was an arbitration agreement between himself and the concerned

HC-KAR

respondents. Thus, the principal question to be addressed is whether there exists an arbitration agreement between the parties.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that apart from the allotment letter dated 08.04.2017, he has not provided any other document. The said allotment letter neither refers to any other agreement nor purports to incorporate any other terms and conditions. Notwithstanding the above, the appellant contends that there exists an arbitration agreement by virtue of the principle of commonality. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to a sharing agreement dated 21.10.2016, which was entered into between the landowners (M/s. Gears and Pinions Private Ltd., M/s. Universal Carburizing Works Private Ltd., Ozone Realtors Private Ltd., and Mr R Shankar) and two developers (M/s. Possession Football LLP and M/s. Elegant Properties). The parties to the said agreement have been arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 3 to 7 in the present proceedings.

7. The appellant contends that inter se disputes between the parties are liable to be referred to arbitration in terms of the

HC-KAR

arbitration agreement, which is embodied in clause No.15 of the sharing agreement.

8. The aforesaid contention is bereft of any merit.

9. Since there is no agreement between the appellant and the respondents, the District Court rightly rejected the appellant's application under Section 9(1)(ii)(c) and (e) of the A&C Act, which provides for interim measures of protection in relation to the disputes that are subject matter of an arbitration agreement and are referable to arbitration.

10. The appeal is meritless, and accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

AT List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22