MAYANK J SHAH vs RAJU V SHAH

Judgment text excerpt

Judgment-CARBP-409-2025+F.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CHAITANYA ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ASHOK JADHAV Digitally signed by CHAITANYA ASHOK JADHAV Date: 2026.04.10 IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION 16:46:56 +0530 COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 409 OF 2025 Mayank J. Shah And Ors. …Petitioners Versus Raju V. Shah And Ors. …Respondents Mr. Sanjay Jain a/w Hrushi Narvekar, Parag Kabadi, Drishti Gudhaka, Vidhi Porwal, i/b OSK Legal, for the Petitioner. Mr. Chetan Kapadia, Senior Advocate, a/w Malcolm Siganporia, Counsel, Yuvraj Singh, Counsel, Rajesh Satpalkar & Devansh Gadda, i/b Mulla & Mulla & Craigie Blunt and Caroe for Respondent No.1. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : APRIL 10, 2026. JUDGEMENT : Context and factual background 1. This is a Petition filed under Section 37(2)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), seeking interference with an order purportedly passed under Section 17 of the Page 1 of 17 April 10, 2026 Chaitanya Judgment-CARBP-409-2025+F.doc Act, by which an impleadment Application came to be allowed by the Learned Arbitral Tribunal. 2. Ordinarily, an order of impleadment which is part and parcel of procedural directions and indeed even affecting substantive rights of the parties owing to joinder being allowed, would not be appealable under Section 37(2)(b) of the Act. The jurisdiction under Section 37 is one that entails an exhaustive listing of permissible appeals, which are a creature of statute. Impleadment of a party would not constitute an interlocutory protective measure as envisaged under Section 17 of the Act. 3. However, the basis on which this Petition is sought to be pursued is that the Respondents in this Petition led by Raju V. Shah (for convenience, collectively termed (“Raju”) filed an