[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Edward Rock Paul vs Anthony Rock Paul And Ors. on 3 February, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:5466
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 165 OF 2023
Edward Rock Paul ...Petitioner
Versus
Anthony Rock Paul and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6740 OF 2024
IN
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 165 OF 2023
Edward Rock Paul (Deceased Through Legal Heirs) ...Applicants
1.1. Richard Edward Paul & Ors
Versus
Anthony Rock Paul and Ors ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10870 OF 2025
IN
ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 165 OF 2023
Mr. Christin Edward Paul & Anr ...Applicants
Versus
Edward Rock Paul and Ors ...Respondents
Mr. Shilpan Gaonkar, i/b Prabhakar M. Jadhav, for the
Applicant.
Mr. S.C. Wakankar, a/w Aishwarya Bapat, for Respondent Nos.1,
2a to 2d.
Mr. Shekhar V. Mane, for Respondent No.5.
Digitally
signed by
ASHWINI
Mr. Prabhanjan Gujar, for Respondent Nos.6 & 7.
ASHWINI JANARDAN
JANARDAN VALLAKATI
VALLAKATI Date:
2026.02.03
10:49:26
+0530
Page 1 of 17
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
::: Uploaded on - 03/02/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 03/02/2026 20:51:52 :::
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
CORAM : SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 3, 2026
JUDGEMENT:
1. The captioned proceedings entail Arbitration Petition No. 165 of
2023 ("Section 11 Petition"), which is an application under Section 11 of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (" the Act"), and two
competing Interim Applications seeking reliefs in the form of permitting
the respective applicants to be substituted or, as the case may be,
transposed in place of the original Petitioner.
2. Mr. Edward Rock Paul ("Edward") was the original petitioner in
the Section 11 Petition. Edward had filed Special Civil Suit No. 837 of
2012 ("Suit") before the Small Causes Court and Joint Civil Judge in
Pune seeking various reliefs in relation to his claimed share in the
development of certain property situated in Pune (" Subject Land") in
terms of a Joint Venture Agreement dated June 15, 2004, executed
among Respondent No. 1, Anthony Rock Paul, who is Edward's brother
("Anthony"), Respondent No. 2, originally Cecilia Anthony Paul (now
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
represented by legal heirs, collectively, " Cecilia") and Respondent No. 3,
Just Homes (India) Pvt. Ltd. ("Just Homes").
3. Respondent No. 4, M/s. Rock Enterprises, is a partnership firm
("Rock Enterprises") in which the partners are Anthony, with a 30%
share; Mary Rock Paul, the mother of Edward and Anthony (" Mary",
with a 30% share); Irene John Paul ("Irene" with a 20% share) and
Edward's wife, Ms. Annmarie Edward Paul ("Annmarie" with a 20%
share). Rock Enterprises was constituted pursuant to a partnership deed
dated August 1, 1992 ("Partnership Deed").
4. It is stated that Rock Enterprises became entitled to
development rights in respect of the Subject Land situated in Village
Wadgaon, in Pune.
5. Mary expired on January 3, 2008. Edward submits that her
30% share is due in equal proportion by Edward, Anthony and their
sibling Mr. John Paul in equal proportions. Annmarie passed away on
August 1, 2000. Edward, who claimed his share in Rock Enterprises by
filing the Suit, has explicitly pleaded that Annmarie's share of 20% in
Rock Enterprises would devolve upon Edward, Respondent No. 5, Ms.
Jestina Melwin David ("Jestina"), Respondent no. 6, Mr. Christin
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
Edward Paul ("Christin") and Respondent No. 7, Doretree Alex Irudyiraj
("Doretree") who were Defendant Nos. 5, 6 and 7 respectively in the
Suit.
6. Reliefs claimed in the Suit, among others, related to Edward's
share in the developed area arising out of the development of the
Subject Land. According to the Respondents, Edward's entitlement is
50,000 square feet, which he has released in their favour fully and
finally, while according to Edward, the area to his share coming through
Annemarie's stake would be in the region of 90,000 square feet.
7. Two release deeds dated December 18, 2000 had been executed
by Edward and the partners of Rock Enterprises, in consideration of
which he would receive a sum of Rs. 4 crore in lieu of Annmarie's
purported share of 50,000 square feet. Edward also had grievances
about the share of Mary and the induction of Cecilia into Rock
Enterprises, which he claimed was based on fabricated documents.
8. A further instrument dated November 27, 2002 (" Release
Deed") was also executed with Just Homes, by which Edward, Jestina,
Christin and Doretree are said to have released their interests in
Annemarie's share in favour of Anthony, Mary and Irene, with Just
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
Homes having to pay Rs. 2.8 crore out of the Rs. 4 crore, and Anthony
having to pay the balance.
9. Edward is said to have been paid Rs. 2.8 crore by Just Homes.
The remaining Rs. 1.2 crore was to be paid by Anthony, and there is a
dispute about whether it has been paid. Irene too is also said to have
executed a Release Deed on the same date and is said to have been paid
for an area of 81,250 square feet, while Edward was said to be entitled to
only 50,000 square feet, although both had a 20% share in Rock
Enterprises. Edward claims to have come to know of this only later, and
this is what led to the Suit. He had also pleaded that he had been
defrauded and his trust in Anthony had been abused.
10. The Respondents are said to have contended that Edward had
received Rs. 80 lakh in cash. Another Civil Suit No. 2153 of 2008 (" Suit
2153") is said to have been filed by Rock Enterprises and its other
partners, in which Anthony has claimed that Edward, Jestina, Christin
and Doretree had received Rs. 3.2 crore in the aggregate and Edward
had received Rs. 80 lakh by cash. It was Edward's case that Anthony is
aligned with Jestina and Christin. According to Edward, the pleadings
of Anthony specifically refer to the consideration of Rs. 4 crore relating
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
to 50,000 square feet, which is in conflict with Irene's share of the same
20% having been released for an area attribution of 81,250 square feet.
11. In the Suit, Anthony, Cecilia, Rock Enterprises and Just Homes
filed applications dated August 9, 2012, under Section 8 of the Act,
contending that disputes under the Partnership Deed could not be
adjudicated outside arbitration in view of the arbitration clause in that
instrument. The Section 8 applications were allowed by an order dated
July 11, 2022, returning the plaint and referring the parties to
arbitration instead.
12. On December 13, 2022, Edward invoked the arbitration clause.
The Respondents contended that Edward had retired from Rock
Enterprises and could not invoke the arbitration clause. This led to
Edward filing the Section 11 Petition on July 12, 2023. Edward passed
away on February 14, 2024.
13. In February 2024, Interim Application No. 6740 of 2024 (" IA
6740") was filed by Richard Edward Paul, Martin Edward Paul and
Radhika S. Jadhav, the offspring of Edward and Shaila (" Applicants")
seeking to be brought on record as Petitioners, as the legal
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
representatives of Edward's estate. IA 6740 is opposed by Christin and
Doretree ("Opponents"), and not by Jestina.
14. The reply affidavit dated December 5, 2024, filed in IA 6740 by
the Opponents asserts that Edward had himself pleaded that Edward
along with Jestina and the Opponents were heirs of Annmarie, and
therefore, the Applicants must show how they can claim to be heirs of
Annmarie and Edward. Edward's claim was for his share of Annmarie's
estate, and therefore, the Opponents claimed, they represent the estate
to which Edward laid a claim.
15. In July 2025, nearly a year and a half later, the Opponents filed
Interim Application No. 10870 of 2025 ("IA 10870"), seeking to be
transposed as Petitioners in place of Edward.
Analysis and Findings:
16. I have heard Mr. Shilpan Gaonkar, Learned Advocate, on behalf
of the Applicants and Mr. Siddarth Wakankar, Learned Advocate on
behalf of the Opponents, and with their assistance, examined the record.
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
17. It is apparent that Edward, Anthony and John (Irene held that
branch's share in Rock Enterprises) are siblings, and the offspring of
Rock Paul and Mary Rock Paul. They had four other siblings, which are
not relevant for the analysis of the core issue in these proceedings - as
seen above, John's branch had a share in Rock Enterprises. Edward was
wedded to Annmarie and had three offspring, Jestina and the
Opponents. The Applicants are the offspring of Edward's union with
Shaila. The Applicants and Jestina are now aligned while the
Opponents are aligned against them.
18. The short question that arises is whether, in view of Edward's
demise, the Applicants ought to be substituted in place of Edward in the
Petition as representing Edward's estate and interests being pursued in
the Petition, or whether, the Opponents ought to be transposed as
representatives of Edward's estate and interests in the Petition.
19. The law is well settled that when a party to any proceedings
expires, and there is a dispute as to who the legal representative is, the
Court would need to determine the question to see how the legal estate
and interests of the deceased are to be represented. On the face of it, in
this Petition, which is pursuit of initiating arbitration proceedings, the
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
Opponents have no claim to pursue. In fact, the Section 11 Petition is
against, among others, the Opponents, whose interests are aligned
against the interests of Edward. It would logically and rationally follow
that they would not be the ones who can claim to represent the interests
of the deceased Edward in this Petition.
20. The scope of jurisdiction in this case is governed by Section 11,
which is primarily the examination of the existence of an arbitration
agreement. There can be no quarrel about the existence of the
arbitration agreement. The Respondents have been unequivocal about
it - they filed the Section 8 Applications to have the plaint in the Suit
returned.
21. Under the Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 ("CPC") strictly do not apply, but the Court may be guided by its
principles. Yet, when this Court is seized of proceedings within its
jurisdiction, and a situation of the nature at hand arises, the Court
would be guided by the principles of Order XXII, Rule 5 of the CPC. It
would not be open to send all parties to arbitration without clarity on
who would be substituted in place of Edward.
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
22. The contentions of the Opponents of being heirs of Annmarie, in
my opinion, are of no relevance. Edward's claim was in relation to the
20% share of Annmarie in Rock Enterprises. When she passed away
and he is said to have released his interests through the Release Deed,
he is said to have signed off interests in Rock Enterprises which were
estimated to entitle him to 50,000 square feet of developed area, while
Irene's identical share of 20% is said to have corresponded to 81,250
square feet of area. Edward's grievance is that he had been short-
changed by Anthony.
23. In this backdrop, who is the legal representative of Annmarie is
not really the question involved here. Who would have an interest in the
claim that was being pursued by Edward is the question to ask.
Although the reply by the Opponents in IA 6740 relies on the fact that
Edward himself had pleaded that the Opponents and Jestina were legal
heirs of Annemarie along with him, it should be noted that the demise of
Annmarie is not the trigger for who should be the legal representative of
Edward. Events after Annmarie's death are what form the subject
matter of the Suit, where the plaint was returned owing to the Section 8
Applications of the Respondents. The issue at hand is the constitution of
an Arbitral Tribunal. In pursuit of that interest, it is illogical for the
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
Opponents to claim a right to be transposed in place of the late Edward.
They could never represent the interests of Edward which were being
pursued against them. Therefore, IA 10870, which was evidently an
afterthought and filed well after IA 6740 was resisted, deserves to be
rejected.
24. As regards IA 6740, what is clear is that the Applicants are
claiming to pursue the interests of Edward, which pursuit was actually
targeted against, among others, the Opponents. In the Suit, Edward had
specifically pleaded that the Opponents were not cooperating with him
and therefore, he had arraigned them as Defendants. Jestina is now
specifically aligned with the Applicants as is also seen from the case
status in relation to Suit No. 361 of 2025 is filed by the Applicants and
Jestina against the Opponents.
25. It is the Opponents' case that the applicants are not offspring
from a legitimate union of Edward. This is not a matter for an order
following the principles of Order XXII Rule 5 of the CPC to conclusively
pronounce upon. The Court faced with competing claims for legal
representation of a deceased's interests and estate has to examine the
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
record and come to a reasoned view upon a summary review and not by
conducting a trial on the issue of succession.
26. That the Applicants are offspring of Edward is not doubted in
any material on the record. The Opponents solely rely on being
legitimate children of Edward's union with Annmarie to assert their
position in the matter, and they depend entirely on this facet. Pursuit of
Edward's interests is the subject matter of the Section 11 Petition.
Annmarie had expired long ago on August 1, 2000. The Opponents'
premise that Edward's offspring from his union with Shaila should have
no role whatsoever in the estate of Edward simply does not lend itself
for acceptance in the situation at hand i.e., deciding who is the
appropriate legal representative of the late Edward.
27. What is clear from the attendant facts and a holistic picture
emerging from the material on record, including the pleadings about
Suit 2153, is that the interests of the Applicants flow from the interests
of Edward that are being pursued in the Section 11 Petition. The
contentions of the Opponents are a matter of merits of the main matter,
which would lie in the domain of the Arbitral Tribunal. What is to be
seen in the context of the Section 11 Petition and the attendant Interim
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
Applications is who is the appropriate legal representative of what
Edward is pursuing in these proceedings. For the reasons analysed
above, the claim of the Applicants, who are offspring of Edward, also
being supported by Jestina, one of the offspring from Edward's
marriage with Annmarie, is the one with merit. Therefore, IA 6740
deserves to be allowed.
28. Both sides have extensively cited case law - Mr. Wakankar,
primarily to contend that this Court should pronounce upon the
question and not leave it to the Arbitral Tribunal, as suggested by Mr.
Gaonkar, who too has cited case law in support of the proposition that
this Court, under Section 11, should merely refer the parties to
arbitration. Since I have clearly returned a finding, based on my
assessment of facts, as to who would represent the interests of the late
Edward's estate as pursued in the Section 11 Petition in favour of the
Applicants and against the Opponents, to avoid prolixity, I am not
extracting from, and analysing the case law cited either way on this
issue.
29. It is also made clear that the determination of legal
representation does not confer on the party in whose favour the right to
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
represent is decided, any right to property, which is the subject matter
of trial, in this case, to be determined in the arbitration proceedings, as
clearly declared by the Supreme Court, in Jaladi Suguna1. Whether the
Opponents and the other Respondents pursue Suit 2153 against the
Applicants as legal representatives of Edward too is a separate matter in
those proceedings. As far as the Section 11 Petition is concerned, the
determination is clearly based on the Applicants pursuing interests
through the late Edward's estate, which includes the claim underlying
this Section 11 Petition.
30. Meanwhile, it has been communicated by Mr. Wakankar that
legal representatives in place of Respondents No. 2(b) and 2(d) need to
be brought on record in view of the demise of the aforesaid
Respondents, who had themselves been legal representatives brought in
place of Cecilia. These substitutions are allowed and may be
incorporated in the course of filing of the Statement of Claim before the
Learned Arbitral Tribunal which is appointed hereby.
31. For the foregoing reasons and in disposal of the Section 11
Petition and the Interim Applications as above, an Arbitral Tribunal is
hereby constituted in the following terms:
1 Jaladi Suguna (Deceased) vs. Satya Sai Central Trust and Others - (2008) 8 SCC
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
A) Justice (Retd.) Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, a former
judge of this Court, is hereby appointed as the Sole
Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes and
differences between the parties arising out of and in
connection with the Agreement referred to above;
Office Address:-
Bungalow No. 12, Bhagya Chintamani Nagar,
Paud Road, Kothrud, Pune - 411 038.
Email ID: [email protected]
B) A copy of this Order will be communicated to the
Learned Sole Arbitrator by the Advocates for the
Petitioner within a period of one week from the date
of upload of this order. The Petitioner shall provide
the contact and communication particulars of the
parties to the Arbitral Tribunal along with a copy of
this Order;
C) The Learned Sole Arbitrator is requested to forward
the statutory Statement of Disclosure under Section
11(8) read with Section 12(1) of the Act to the parties
within a period of two weeks from receipt of a copy of
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
this Order;
D) The parties shall appear before the Learned Sole
Arbitrator on such date and at such place as indicated,
to obtain appropriate directions with regard to
conduct of the arbitration including fixing a schedule
for pleadings, examination of witnesses, if any,
schedule of hearings etc. At such meeting, the parties
shall provide a valid and functional email address
along with mobile and landline numbers of the
respective Advocates of the parties to the Arbitral
Tribunal. Communications to such email addresses
shall constitute valid service of correspondence in
connection with the arbitration;
E) All arbitral costs and fees of the Arbitral Tribunal shall
be borne by the parties equally in the first instance,
and shall be subject to any final Award that may be
passed by the Tribunal in relation to costs.
32. Needless to say, nothing contained in this order is an
expression of an opinion on merits of the matter or the relative strength
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
J-901-ARP-165-2023.doc
of the parties. All issues on merits are expressly kept open to be agitated
before the arbitral tribunal appointed hereby.
33. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall
be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court's
website.
[ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]
February 3, 2026
Ashwini Vallakati
