LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/luxempire-realty-pvt-ltd-vs-eminence-landmarks-llp-and-ors-20251016/ · Printed 10 Nov 2026
Civil

Luxempire Realty Pvt Ltd vs Eminence Landmarks Llp And Ors

Court
Bombay High Court
Date
16 October 2025
Case No.
Writ Petition No. 2068 of 2025
Bench
G. S. Kulkarni J., Advait M. Sethna J.
Acts & Sections
Constitution §226 Constitution §227 Arbitration and Conciliation Act §9 Companies Act §2013 Limited Liability Partnership Act §2008 Partnership Act §1932
Headnote AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in purchasing land for real estate development, challenged an order passed by a sole arbitrator in arbitral proceedings between Eminence Landmarks LLP (respondent no. 1) and Gagan Platinum Spaces LLP (respondent no. 2). The arbitrator had directed the impleadment of the petitioner, a third party and non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, as a party/respondent in those proceedings. The petitioner contended that it was a bona fide purchaser of the subject land under a Deed of Conveyance dated 29 March 2024 from respondent no. 9, and that it stood entirely outside the group of companies doctrine applicable to the other respondents.

Two principal questions arose for determination: first, whether a third party and non-signatory to the arbitration agreement, who falls outside the applicability of the group of companies doctrine, can be impleaded as a party in pending arbitral proceedings; and second, whether the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution could be exercised to interfere with an order passed by an arbitral tribunal in such circumstances.

The factual background involved an Articles of Agreement dated 25 February 2017 between M/s. Eminence and M/s. Gagan for a loan of ₹25 crores advanced for the purchase and development of the subject land, with a guaranteed return of ₹54 crores by 31 March 2020. Following alleged defaults, M/s. Eminence invoked the arbitration clause and initiated proceedings against respondent nos. 2 to 8. The petitioner had entered into negotiations to purchase the land from respondent no. 9 in December 2023 and subsequently completed the purchase, leading to the dispute regarding its impleadment in the arbitral proceedings.
Catchwords: arbitration · non-signatory · group of companies doctrine · impleadment · third party · Articles 226 and 227 · Constitution of India · interim measures · Section 9 Arbitration and Conciliation Act · real estate · bona fide purchaser · arbitral tribunal · writ jurisdiction

Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.

Filed under

Arbitration and Conciliation Act

Full Judgment Text

[Cites 70, Cited by 0] Bombay High Court Luxempire Realty Pvt Ltd vs Eminence Landmarks Llp And Ors on 16 October, 2025 Author: G.S. Kulkarni Bench: G. S. Kulkarni 2025:BHC-AS:46143-DB WP2068_2025.DOC Vidya Amin IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY PRASHANT VILAS CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION RANE Digitally signed by PRASHANT WRIT PETITION NO. 2068 OF 2025 VILAS RANE Date: 2025.10.19 19:42:41 +0530 Luxempire Realty Private Ltd. a Private Limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at S.No. 271, CTS, 4337, Plot No. 3, Shrinidha
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All Bombay HC judgments →
⚖ LegalFirms.in Directory
Find an advocate for this matter
Dealing with a similar case? Find an advocate who handles this kind of matter on LegalFirms.in.
Find an Advocate →