JOLLY BROTHERS PVT. LTD. vs SURENDRA NATH JOLLY AND 2 ORS

Judgment text excerpt

Judgment-ARBP-785-2016.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Digitally signed by CHAITANYA CHAITANYA ASHOK ASHOK JADHAV ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 785 OF 2016 JADHAV Date: 2026.02.24 14:45:21 +0530 Jolly Brothers Pvt. Ltd. …Petitioner Versus Surendra Nath Jolly And 2 Ors. …Respondents Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Chirag Kamdar, Ms. Ishani Khanwilkar, Ms. Sameeksha Yadav, Mr. Tanish Amin i/b MDP Associates, for the Petitioner. Mr. Nitin Thakkar, Senior Advocate, a/w A. S. Pal, Siddharth Mehta, Midhunkumar Allu, Sanjana Das i/b Siddharth Mehta, for the Respondent Nos.1A, 1C, 2 and 3. Mr. Ranit Basu a/w Maitri Malde, Dua Shaikh, Harshada Nirmal i/b Bridgehead Law Partners, for Respondent No. 1B. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 24, 2026. JUDGEMENT : Context and Factual Background: 1. This is a Petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), impugning an Arbitral Award dated October 10, 2015 (“the Impugned Award”), by which the Learned Arbitral Tribunal has dismissed the Petitioner's contention that a Memorandum of Understanding dated December 7, 2006 (“MOU”) Page 1 of 36 February 24, 2026 Chaitanya Judgment-ARBP-785-2016.doc for transfer of land is subsisting and is amenable to specific performance. 2. The MOU was executed between the Petitioner, Jolly Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (“Company”) and the Respondents, certain members of the wider Jolly Family (“Jollys”), by which, a particular parcel of land admeasuring about 4.1 acres (“Subject Land”) was meant to be surrendered by the Jollys in favour of the Company on the terms and conditions set out therein. 3. The wider family of which the Jollys were a part, had been involved in various internal disputes and diffe