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.
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.