OM DEVELOPERS vs BERNARDINE MOUAD HERIQUE

Judgment text excerpt

Orl.Judg-29-CARBP(L)-11909-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 11909 OF 2025 Digitally signed by CHAITANYA CHAITANYA ASHOK ASHOK JADHAV JADHAV Date: Om Developers …Petitioner 2026.02.16 12:04:29 +0530 Versus Bernardine Mouad Herique …Respondents Mr. Samir A. Vaidya a/w Adv. Zainab Khan, Adv. Chandarani Gore, for the Petitioner. CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 9, 2026 Oral Judgement: Context and Factual Background: 1. The challenge in this Petition filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), is to an interim order passed under Section 17 dated March 6, 2025 passed by a Learned Arbitral Tribunal. 2. By the said order, the Learned Arbitral Tribunal was pleased to direct certain interlocutory arrangements, specifically in the form of a deposit of Rs. 1.33 crores by a Demand Draft, to be kept with the Page 1 of 6 February 9, 2026 Chaitanya Orl.Judg-29-CARBP(L)-11909-2025.doc Advocate for the Claimant, who would act as an escrow agent and hold the same subject to the outcome of the arbitral proceedings. 3. By an order dated February 23, 2025 (“Section 16 Order”), the Learned Arbitral Tribunal had also been pleased to reject an Application under Section 16, which was fundamentally founded on the claim being barred by limitation. The grounds on which the Section 17 order is assailed are essentially dependent on the plea of limitation which was pressed into service and was rejected in the Section 16 order. Analysis and Findings: 4. It is now settled law that the rejection of a Section 16 Application is not amenable to challenge during the pendency of the arbitral proceedings. Grievances about such rejection could form the subject mat