A landmark clarification by the Bombay High Court has established that the ultimate outcome of arbitration proceedings, not interim administrative orders, governs enforceable rights over immovable property. This decision reinforces the primacy of arbitral awards under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and provides critical guidance to litigants and registrars dealing with property disputes arising from development agreements.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Samir Narain Bhojwani, sought relief against the Assistant Registrar of Cooperative Societies and other respondents regarding his claim to a residential flat in a housing society. The dispute originated from a development agreement with Respondent No. 2, wherein the petitioner had paid substantial advances for a unit but faced non-delivery and procedural obstruction by the society. The petitioner had previously filed Writ Petition No. 16634 of 2025, which resulted in a judgment on 12 December 2025. Although that judgment directed certain procedural compliance, it did not conclusively determine his proprietary rights.
Procedural History
- 2023: Petitioner initiated arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking specific performance and declaration of title.
- 2024: The society, through Respondent Nos. 1 and 4, refused to register the petitioner’s name as member, citing pending arbitration.
- December 2025: Bombay High Court issued an interim order in WP No. 16634 of 2025 directing the Registrar to process documents, but without adjudicating title.
- January 2026: Petitioner filed the present writ petitions (No. 952 and 954 of 2026) seeking further direction to compel registration, arguing that the earlier judgment was ambiguous.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a mandatory direction to the Registrar to register him as a member of the cooperative society, contingent upon the outcome of the arbitration. He argued that the earlier judgment’s silence on the finality of rights created legal uncertainty.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an interim judicial direction to process documents in a writ petition can override or preempt the final determination of property rights that are pending adjudication under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, represented by Senior Advocate S. U. Kamdar, contended that the earlier judgment’s failure to clarify the legal effect of a future arbitral award created a vacuum. He relied on S.B.S. Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra to argue that courts must not issue orders that conflict with the finality of arbitral proceedings. He emphasized that the petitioner’s rights were contingent upon the arbitration’s outcome and that any administrative action prior to that would be premature and violative of natural justice.
For the Respondent
The State, represented by Additional Government Pleader Pooja Patil, argued that the Registrar’s role was purely ministerial and that the court’s earlier direction was intended to prevent procedural delay. Respondents No. 1 and 4 contended that the petitioner had no vested right until membership was formally granted under the Cooperative Societies Act, and that the arbitration was merely a civil claim, not a title-declaring proceeding. Respondent No. 3 argued that the society’s bylaws required formal admission, which could not be bypassed by judicial observation.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the interplay between judicial intervention in writ proceedings and the statutory framework of arbitration. It noted that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act vests exclusive authority to determine rights in the arbitral tribunal, and that courts must not prejudge outcomes. The Court observed that the earlier judgment had not adjudicated title but had merely directed procedural compliance to avoid prejudice.
"If the petitioner ultimately succeeds in the arbitration or on any appeal under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act and thereby establishes a right, title or interest enforceable against the vendor or against respondent No.2 in respect of the flat, the successful outcome in those proceedings will govern the rights and obligations of the parties and the society."
The Court held that any administrative action by the Registrar - whether registration, denial, or conditional approval - must await the final arbitral award. To do otherwise would undermine the legislative intent behind arbitration as a complete and binding dispute resolution mechanism. The Court further clarified that interim directions in writ petitions cannot create substantive rights; they are procedural safeguards only.
The Court emphasized that the principle of finality in arbitration under Section 34 and Section 36 of the Act takes precedence over administrative convenience. The Registrar’s role is not to anticipate arbitral outcomes but to implement them once legally enforceable.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s writ petitions were disposed of with a clarificatory order. The Court held that the outcome of arbitration governs enforceable property rights, and no administrative action by the Registrar can preempt or override the arbitral award. The petitioner’s rights remain contingent upon success in arbitration.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Arbitral Award Prevails Over Administrative Orders
- Practitioners must not seek writ relief to compel registration or transfer before an arbitral award is final and enforceable.
- Cooperative societies and registrars must suspend all membership actions pending the conclusion of arbitration.
- Courts must avoid issuing directions that imply a pre-judgment of arbitral outcomes.
Writ Petitions Cannot Substitute Arbitration
- Writ petitions under Article 226 are not forums to adjudicate contractual or proprietary claims that are subject to arbitration agreements.
- Any order directing registration or transfer prior to arbitral determination is liable to be set aside as ultra vires.
- Legal advisors should advise clients to exhaust arbitration remedies before approaching writ courts for property-related relief.
Clarity in Judicial Orders Is Mandatory
- Courts issuing interim directions in property disputes must explicitly state whether they are procedural or substantive.
- Ambiguous orders create litigation risk and administrative confusion.
- Future judgments should include clarificatory language where arbitral proceedings are pending, to prevent multiplicity of litigation.
