Bombay High Court
Gurukrupa Developers (Third Party ... vs Kishore Vrajlal Soni on 7 October, 2025
2025:BHC-OS:18234 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
THIRD PARTY APPLICATION (L) NO. 23148 OF 2025
IN
SUIT NO. 190 OF 2024
Kishore Vrajlal Soni ... Plaintiff
Versus
Nirali Parekh & Ors. ... Defendants
And
M/s. Gurukrupa Developers ...Third Party Applicants
Shri Vikramjeet Grewal with Paresh Shah and Ms. Vileene
Mirasee i/b. Shah and Sanghavi, Advocate for the Third Party
Applicants
Shri Akshay Udeshi, Advocate for the Plaintiff
Shri Siddharth Kate i/by Wadia Ghandy & Co., Advocate for the
Original Defendants.
Before : E.B. Sivakumar
Addl. Registrar (O.S.) /
Addl. Prothonotary and Senior Master
Closed for orders on : 17th September 2025
Order pronounced on : 7th October 2025
Called for order :
P.C. :
1.
The present application has been filed by the Third Party
Applicant, seeking issuance of certified copies of records and
proceedings as mentioned in the application relating to Suit
No. 190 of 2024 as per Rule 268 of the High Court Original
Side Rules 1980.
2. The application has been served upon the parties to the suit.
Perused the Affidavit-in-reply, Rejoinder and sur-rejoinder
filed by the original plaintiff, Defendant and the Applicant
respectively. The Third Party Applicant has stated in the
Affidavit-in-support that by a registered Collaboration-cum-
Development Agreement dated 11th June 2005, executed
between the Defendants and the Applicant, the Defendants had
given the piece and parcel of leasehold land admeasuring
839.70 square meters being Plot No. 4 bearing C.T.S. No. 284,
Revenue Village Juhu, Taluka Andheri Juhu, J.V.P.D Scheme,
Vile Parle (West), Mumbaj-400 056, for the development and
the said Development Agreement is still valid and is being
acted upon by the Defendants. The Applicant has further stated
that the Suit No. 190 of 2024 was filed by Kishore Vrajlal Soni
against the Defendants, inter-alia, praying for an order for
permanent injunction against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 acting by
themselves and/or through their servants, agents and/or
representatives and/or person claiming through or under them
from in any manner, from obstructing/denying access to the
Plaintiff and/or his representatives from entering on the said
Plot and other reliefs as prayed therein. The above suit has
been settled by filing Consent Terms on 7 th March, 2025 in
Appeal No. 89 of 2024 in Interim Application (L) No. 29071
of 2023 in Suit No. 190 of 2024. It is further stated that
certain disputes have arisen by and between the Defendants
and the Third Party Applicant in respect of the Collaboration-
Cum-Development Agreement and as a result whereof the
Applicant had invoked the Arbitration Clause under the said
Collaboration-cum-Development Agreement and they required
certified copies to file an Application under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the Defendants
abovenamed.
3. The Plaintiff in his Affidavit-in-reply had denied each and
every contentions and submissions on behalf of the
Defendants. The Plaintiff has stated that, the Application is
nothing but an abuse in the process of law and ought to be
dismissed with exemplary costs. It is further stated that the
Applicant is a stranger to the dispute between the Plaintiff and
Defendants and the Applicant is not entitled to the documents
as sought for in the present application as the Plaintiff had
filed the above suit against the Defendants for the reliefs as
more particularly stated therein and the Applicant is no way
concerned with reliefs sought therein. The Plaintiff has also
vehemently objected in parting with the documents as sought
for in the present application on the grounds that the same
needs to be strictly confidential and should not be disclosed to
public at large and the Plaintiff does not wish to part with his
documents including the Consent Terms dated 7 th March 2025
and it should never be disclosed to any third party including
the Applicant. The Plaintiff has further stated that if the said
documents are parted with the Applicant, it will misuse and
create great hurdles for the Plaintiff and the Applicant needs
to establish its own case basis, its own merits and not on the
basis of pleadings and consent terms filed in the suit filed by
the Plaintiff against the Defendants. It is further stated that the
Plaintiff is unaware of about the dispute between the
Defendants and the Applicant and therefore the Plaintiff would
not like to share any information with reference to the present
suit with the Applicant.
4. The Defendants in the affidavit-in-reply has stated that, the suit
was filed by the Plaintiff, inter alia, claiming 1/8 th leasehold
interest in the property admeasuring 838.1 sq. mtrs., bearing
Plot No. 4, C.T.S. No. 284, Revenue Village Juhu, Taluka
Andheri Juhu. J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai 400
056, of which the Defendants are lessees. It is further stated
that, during the pendency of Appeal No. 89 of 2024 filed by
the Defendants challenging an interim order dated 15th April
2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Interim Application (L)
No. 29071 of 2024, filed by the Plaintiff in the Suit, parties
filed Consent Terms dated 7th March, 2025 putting an end to
their disputes and the Suit was accordingly disposed of by an
Order dated 7th March, 2025 passed by the Division Bench of
this Hon'ble Court. It is further stated that, the Applicant has
no interest and is not concerned with the suit, the pleadings
filed therein, the Orders passed therein and / or the consent
terms dated 7th March, 2025, and that, the consent terms
contains material commercial terms agreed between the parties
to the suit and which are private and personal between them. It
is further stated that, the Applicant seeks to obtain documents
from an unrelated settled case to use them in separate
proceedings which have not yet been instituted and merely
because an arbitration agreement has been invoked does not
grant the Applicant a right to seek certified copies of the
papers and proceedings of the suit and the request specified in
the application is therefore unfounded and unjustified and the
same is false and the application ought to be rejected with
costs. The Defendant has also denied that the documents
specified in the application required by the Applicant in the
application being filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. It is further stated that, the consent
terms dated 7th March 2025 contains material commercial
terms agreed between parties to the suit which cannot and
ought not to be disclosed to any Third Party especially the
Applicant, who will try to obstruct or prevent compliance with
the consent terms so as to harass the Defendants. It is further
stated that, the Applicant, is not connected with the Suit and
the Applicant is not entitled for the certified copies and at the
outset, the Application is nothing but an abuse of the process
of law and ought to be dismissed with costs.
5. The Defendant No.3 in his Affidavit in Sur-Rejoinder has
stated that the Applicant, in the Affidavit-in-Rejoinder to the
Defendants' Reply, has made several false statements and
averments and has misrepresented several facts and made
concocted statements in a desperate attempt to lay hands on
documents which it is not entitled to and the Defendants had
denied all allegations, statements and averments made by the
Applicant. The Defendants had further stated that the Consent
Terms dated 7th March 2025 is a confidential document
containing material commercial terms agreed between the
Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Defendant has further stated
that, the Applicant has suppressed the fact that the agreement it
has sought to rely upon is no longer a valid and binding
agreement and it has no nexus with the Suit and the Applicant
has relied upon a letter dated 23 rd July 2025 addressed by its
Advocates whereby invoked arbitration but has failed to
disclose the context in which the letter was addressed. It is
further stated that the said letter was addressed in response to a
letter dated 22nd January 2025 addressed by the Defendants
erstwhile Advocates stating in unequivocal terms that the
agreement stood terminated and is no longer valid and binding
on parties and the Applicant has suppressed the fact that the
agreement it has sought to rely upon is not even a valid and
binding agreement. It is further stated that the documents of
which certified copies are sought are completely irrelevant to
the disputes which have arisen between the Applicant and the
Defendants and the Applicant has filed the present application
solely with the intent of harassing the Defendants and the
Applicant is not concerned with the Suit, the pleadings filed
therein, the Orders passed therein and/or the Consent Terms
dated 7th March 2023 and that the Applicant is not entitled to
the certified copies of the documents sought in the captioned
Application and the Application be dismissed with costs in
favour of the Defendants.
6. Heard the Ld. Advocates for the parties. The Ld. Advocate for
the Third-Party Applicant has submitted that the Defendants
had entered into a Collaboration-cum-Development Agreement
concerning their share in the plot of land and the said
agreement contains an arbitration clause and the Defendants
have subsequently cancelled the agreement and the Applicant
has invoked the arbitration clause and intends to file an
Arbitration Petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996. He has further submitted that for the
purpose of putting on record before the Arbitral Tribunal, the
production of the certified copy of the settlement terms is
essential as the subject matter of Suit No. 190 of 2024 and in
the Collaboration-cum-Development Agreement is plot of land
being all that piece and parcel leasehold land admeasuring
839.70 square meters bearing Plot No.4 bearing CTS No. 284,
situate at JVPD Scheme, Revenue Village, Juhu, Taluka
Andhri, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai 400 056 and the said Suit
was filed by the Plaintiff, inter alia, claiming 1/8 th share in the
Suit Plot.
7. The Ld. Advocate for the Applicant has further submitted that
on 11th June, 2005, the Defendants entered into a
Collaboration-cum-Development Agreement, which has been
duly registered with the Sub-Registrar of Assurances, inter
alia, for development of the Suit Plot. He has further submitted
that under the said registered Agreement, it was inter alia
agreed that the Applicant would have a right to sell and/or
dispose of the units constructed on the Suit Plot and coming to
their share and it was recorded that the Defendants have
executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of the
Third party authorizing them to execute tenancy agreement in
respect of the area allotted to them under clause 5.1 and clause
11 thereof. The Ld. Advocate has further submitted that under
the said registered Agreement, it was, inter alia, recorded that
the Defendants shall introduce either of the following persons
(a) Mr. Chetan Kothari, (b) Mr. Chetan Patel and (c) Mr.
Mansukhbhai Sureja and/or their family members, who may
retain the flat as a nominee members of the Vithal Nagar co-
op. Housing Society Ltd. He has further submitted that it was
agreed that the Defendants shall not be entitled to Transfer
and/or assign and/or mortgage their respective rights in the suit
plot without prior permission in writing of the third party
Applicants. It was further submitted that the execution,
registration and creation of rights of the applicant in the Suit
Plot have not been denied by either the Plaintiff or the
Defendants in any of the Affidavits filed by them in the present
Application. The Ld. Advocate has further submitted that it is
an admitted position that rights are created in the Suit Plot in
favour of the Applicant by virtue of the aforementioned
registered Agreement and also the Suit No.190 of 2024 is in
relation to the Suit Plot and the Consent Terms adversely
affect the rights of the Applicant under the Consent Terms and
therefore the Applicant is entitled for certified copies as
applied for.
8. As regards objections of the Plaintiff and the Defendants to
the grant of the Consent Terms, one being that the Applicant
will misuse the Consent Terms and second that the terms
thereof are confidential, the Ld. Advocate for the Applicant has
submitted that neither the Consent Terms nor the order dated
7th March, 2025 state that the terms of the Consent Terms are
confidential and no such directions are issued in the present
case. He has further submits that, it is the usual practice of this
Hon'ble Court that where certain terms are to be kept
confidential the same is so directed in the order on the Consent
Terms and further directions to keep the same sealed envelope.
The Ld. Advocate has further submitted in regard to the second
objection of misuse, it is the specific case of the Applicant, that
the documents are required to be used not only in an
Arbitration Application under Section 11 but in other
arbitration proceedings as against the very Defendants in Suit
No. 190 of 2024. He has, therefore, prayed that, the Third
Party Application be allowed in the interest of justice.
9. The Ld. Advocate for the Plaintiff has vehemently opposed the
application and submitted that the Collaboration-cum-
Development Agreement was entered into between the
Defendants and the Applicant, and the Plaintiff is not a party.
He has further submitted that the Plaintiff denies each and
every contentions, submissions and/or insinuation which is
contrary to and inconsistent with what is stated. The Ld.
Advocate has further stated that the Applicant is a stranger to
the dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendants and the
Applicant is not entitled to the documents as sought for in the
present application as the Plaintiff has filed the above suit
against the Defendants for the reliefs as more particularly
stated therein and the Applicant is no way concerned with
reliefs sought therein. The Ld. Advocate for the Plaintiff has
also vehemently objected in parting with the documents as
sought for, in the present application on the grounds that the
same needs to be strictly confidential and should not be
disclosed to public at large and that if the Applicant is
attempting to base his case on the footing of Plaintiff's
documents, which is impermissible in law and the Plaintiff
does not wish to part with his documents including the consent
terms dated 7th March 2025 and these Consent Terms need to
be confidential and should never be disclosed to any third
party including the Applicant. He has further submitted that if
the said documents are parted with the Applicant, it will be
misused and create great hurdles for the Plaintiff / and the
Applicant needs to establish its own case basis its own merits
and not on the basis of pleadings and consent terms file in the
suit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants. The Ld.
Advocate has further submitted that the Plaintiff is unaware
about the dispute between the Defendants and the Applicant
and therefore the Plaintiff would not like to share any
information with reference to the present suit with the
Applicant. He has further submitted that the Application is
nothing but an abuse in the process of law and ought to be
dismissed with exemplary costs.
10. The Ld. Advocate for the Defendants has vehemently opposed
the application and submitted that the Collaboration-cum-
Development Agreement was entered into between the
Defendants and the Applicants, and the same was cancelled.
He has further submitted that the Applicant has filed the
present application solely with the intent of harassing the
Defendants and the Applicant has no interest in the Suit and
the pleadings filed therein, Orders passed therein and Consent
Terms dated 7th March 2025 and the Applicant is in no manner
concerned with the Suit. The Ld. Advocate has further
submitted that the Application be dismissed with costs on the
grounds that the Applicant is admittedly not concerned with or
interested in the Suit and that the issue in the Suit is concerned
the leasehold interest of Defendants whereas the Applicant
admittedly has no interest in the Suit property and the dispute
which has now arisen between Defendants and the Applicant
has no nexus or relation with the Suit. He has further
submitted the Applicant has failed to show 'sufficient cause'
for obtaining certified copies of documents specified in the
Application and the only justification/cause given by the
Applicant for being provided certified copies of the pleadings
and consent terms filed in the Suit is that the same are required
for being produced in the Arbitration proceedings to be filed
against the Defendants.
11. The Ld. Advocate has further submitted the Applicant has
failed to explain how the two are connected and why it
requires the documents for such future proceedings and the
Suit, pleadings filed therein, Orders passed therein, and the
Consent Terms dated 7th March 2025 have nothing to do with
the Applicant or the dispute which has arisen between the
Defendants and the Applicant. The Ld. Advocate for the
Defendants has further submitted that the documents of which
certified copies are sought contain material commercial terms
which are private between the Plaintiff and Defendants and the
papers and pleadings of the Suit have no nexus or relation to
the proceedings to be adopted by the Applicant. He has further
submitted that the Defendants have never denied the existence
of the Collaboration-cum-Development Agreement dated 11th
June 2005 but the Applicant has suppressed that the agreement
is not a valid agreement as it stood terminated by the
Defendants' Advocates' letter dated 22nd January 2025. The
Ld. Advocate for Defendants has further submitted that the
application is only a way to circumvent the process of
discovery, disclosure and production, all of which will be
available to the Applicant in the proceedings it intends to file
and the Applicant has stated that it has invoked arbitration by
its Advocates' letter dated 23rd July 2025, it is all the more
appropriate for the Applicant to follow the process of
discovery, disclosure and production, all of which will be
available to the Applicant in arbitral proceedings.
12. The Ld. Advocate for Defendants relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the case of
Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat
[Civil Appeal No(s). 1966-1967 of of 2020 arising out of SLP
(C) No.5840 of 2015] and held as under
"27. ...As such, the High Court Rules do not
obstruct a third party from obtaining copies of
documents in any court proceedings or any
document on the judicial side. It is not as if the
information is denied or 21. Pertinently, the
Arbitral Tribunal, if it finds that the documents
sought in this Application are relevant to future
proceedings, will pass appropriate award/
order. The Arbitral Tribunal can also redact
material commercial terms, which are personal
and private and do not concern the Applicant,
when passing such award/ order. If this
Application is allowed, then the Applicant will
be privy to all such personal and private
commercial terms agreed between parties to
the Suit."
13. The Ld. Advocate for the Defendants has also relied upon an
Order dated 24th January 2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in
the Third Party Application (L) No. 1094 of 2022 in
Commercial Suit No. 109 of 2013 (Arcelor Mittal Nippon
Steel India Ltd. ..... Third Party Applicant, New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. ..... Plaintiffs vs. Amlin
Underwriting Ltd. & Ors. ......Defendants), the Hon'ble Court
held that the arbitral tribunal would be the appropriate
authority to consider whether the Applicant is to be granted
disclosure of the papers and proceedings in Commercial Suit
No. 109 of 2013.
14. It is submitted that the Consent Terms dated 7th March 2025
contain material commercial terms agreed between parties to
the Suit which cannot and ought not to be disclosed to third
parties, especially the Applicant as the Defendants strongly
apprehend that in the event the Consent Terms are given to the
Applicant, the Applicant will, with the intent of harassing the
Defendants, attempt to prevent/ obstruct compliance with the
Consent Terms and this will severely prejudice both, the
Plaintiff and the Defendants. In view of the above, it is
submitted that the Applicant is not entitled to the certified
copies of the documents sought in the Application and
accordingly the Application be dismissed with costs in favour
of the Defendants.
15. As regards the Judgment in the case of Arcelor Mittal Nippon
Steel India Ltd V/s New India Assurance Co. ltd. (Coram:
Chagla, J.) cited by the Defendants, the Ld. Advocate for the
Applicant has submitted that the said judgment has no
application in the present case as (1) no arbitral Tribunal has
yet been constituted between the parties and (ii) factually, in
the aforesaid judgment the Court refused reliefs on the ground
that a similar application was already made before the Ld.
Arbitrator but in the present case, the Arbitral Tribunal has not
been constituted so far in the dispute between the third party
and the Defendants, hence the question of any application
made to the arbitrator cannot and does not arise and the
Arbitrator has no power or authority over this Hon'ble Court
to pass an Order to issue the certified copy of the documents
prayed for or for the production of the original records of this
Hon'ble Court and therefore it is just necessary and in the
interest that Application prayed for be granted.
16. It is to be noted that Rule 268 of Bombay High Court Original
Side Rules, 1980, indicates that if sufficient cause is shown,
this Authority has discretion to grant certified copy of the
entire records and proceedings to the Third Party Applicant.
Rule 268 is reproduced below:-
"The Prothonotary and Senior Master may, on the
application of a person not a party to a suit or matter, on
sufficient cause being shown, allow search or grant
certified copies of such papers and proceedings in the
suit or matter as the Prothonotary and Senior Master
may think fit, on payment of the prescribed fees and
charges. When such person applies for a certified copy
of a part of a document on record, the Prothonotary and
Senior Master may, in his discretion, grant such copy."
17. The only issue came up for my consideration is :
"(a) Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause to
get the certified copy of the entire records and
proceedings in suit No.190 of 2024 as applied for?"
18. I answer the issue in the affirmative. It is not in dispute that
by a registered Collaboration-cum-Development Agreement
dated 11th June 2005, executed between the Defendants and
the Applicant, the Defendants had given the piece and parcel
of leasehold land admeasuring 839.70 square meters bearing
Plot No. 4, bearing C.T.S. No. 284, Revenue Village Juhu,
Taluka Andheri Juhu, J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Parle (West),
Mumbaj-400 056, for the development. The Suit No. 190 of
2024 was filed by Kishore Vrajlal Soni against the
Defendants, inter-alia, praying for an order for permanent
injunction against Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 acting by themselves
and/or through their servants, agents and/or representatives
and/or person claiming through or under them from in any
manner, from obstructing/denying access to the Plaintiff and/or
his representatives from entering on the said Plot and other
reliefs as prayed therein.
19. It appears from the record that, certain disputes have arisen
between the Defendants and the Third Party Applicants in
respect of the Collaboration-Cum-Development Agreement
dated 11th June, 2005 and as a result whereof the Applicant had
invoked the Arbitration Clause under the said Collaboration-
cum-Development Agreement and they will be filing an
Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 against the Defendants abovenamed.
The Defendants had cancelled the said Collaboration-Cum-
Development Agreement vide their Advocate's letter dated
22nd January 2025. According to the Plaintiff, he is unaware
about the dispute between the Defendants and the Applicant
and therefore the Plaintiff would not like to share any
information with reference to the present suit with the
Applicant. Plaintiff and Defendants have raised objections to
the grant of certified copies. The objections of Plaintiff and
Defendants in particular include that the applicant has no locus
standi and is a stranger to the suit, and thus has no right to seek
or obtain the certified copies of the records, on the ground that
the documents sought are confidential making them unsuitable
for disclosure to non-parties. The property involved in the
Collaboration-Cum-Development Agreement and in the suit is
the same, which has been cancelled but the legal ramifications
are yet to be settled.
20. As regards the reliance of the Defendants on the Order dated
24th January 2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the Third
Party Application (L) No. 1094 of 2022 in Commercial Suit
No. 109 of 2013 (Arcelor Mittal Nippon Steel India Ltd. .....
Third Party Applicant, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. &
Anr. Vs. Amlin Underwriting Ltd. & Ors.), is concerned, the
Hon'ble Court specified therein that the Arbitration
proceedings has already been commenced before filing the
Third Party Application for certified copy of the records in that
suit. In the present application, the Third Party Applicant did
not file the Arbitration Petition but the Applicant requires the
records and proceedings of the suit, as applied for initiating
arbitration proceedings. As regards the reliance placed on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in the
case of Chief Information Commissioner Vs. High Court of
Gujarat [Civil Appeal No(s). 1966-1967 of of 2020 arising out
of SLP (C) No.5840 of 2015] is concerned, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has clarified that provisions of RTI Act shall
not be resorted to obtain information to be accessed / certified
copies on judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism
provided under the High Court Rules. In the present
application, the Third Party Applicant has made application
under Rule 268 of the Bombay High Court, Original Side
Rules, 1980.
21. This Authority has duly considered the objections raised by
Plaintiff and Defendants along with the submissions made on
their behalf. For the purpose of effective adjudication of his
rights in the arbitration proceedings, the applicant contends
that the certified copy of the compromise and settlement terms
is a material and necessary document. In view of the aforesaid
circumstances and having considered the materials on record,
this Authority finds that the applicant has shown bonafide
requirement of the certified copy of records for pursuing
arbitration-related proceedings. The objections regarding locus
and stranger status do not prima facie disqualify the applicant
at this stage from obtaining the certified copies. Therefore, no
harm in granting certified copies to the Applicant.
22. The Third Party Applicant has shown sufficient cause for
issuance of certified copy of entire record and proceedings of
Suit No.190 of 2024. The Third-Party Application is therefore
allowed. Office is directed to issue certified copy of entire
record and proceedings in Suit No.190 of 2024 to the third
party applicants as per the application, on payment of
necessary charges.
23. It is made clear that the third party applicant shall use the
certified copy only for the purpose mentioned in the third party
Application and in accordance with Rule 271 of Bombay High
Court O.S. Rules, 1980, and not to part with the certified copy
to any other third party. Third Party Application is disposed of.
Addl. Registrar (O.S.) /
Addl. Prothonotary and Senior Master
