Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Neelkanth Mansions And Infrastructure … vs Urban Infrastructure Trustees Limited on 5 August, 2025
SLP(C) Nos. 18578-18579/2025
ITEM NO.8 COURT NO.8 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 18578-18579/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-06-2025
in CAA No. 110/2025 18-06-2025 in CARBP No. 185/2025 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay]
NEELKANTH MANSIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PRIVATE LIMITED Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
URBAN INFRASTRUCTURE TRUSTEES LIMITED & ANR. Respondent(s)
FOR ADMISSION
IA No. 162715/2025 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
Date : 05-08-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. MAHADEVAN
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nakul Dewan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Kazan Shroff, Adv.
Mr. Sharad Bansal, Adv.
Mr. M.s. Federal, Adv.
Mr. Murtuza Federal, Adv.
Ms. Rashne Mulla-feroze, Adv.
Mr. Aaroha Kulkarni, Adv.
Mr. Nikhil Jalan, Adv.
Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Adv.
Ms. Sumedha Sarkar, Adv.
Ms. Atmaja, Adv.
Mr. Rony Oommen John, AOR
Mr. Arshdeep Singh, Adv.
Mr. Amay bahri, Adv.
Mr. Satyender Saharan, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
1
CHANDRESH
Date: 2025.08.06
17:00:49 IST
Reason:
SLP(C) Nos. 18578-18579/2025
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kual, Sr. Adv.
M/S. K J John And Co, AOR
Mr. Amarjit Singh Bedi, Adv.
Ms. Surekha Raman, Adv.
Mr. Aditya Bapat, Adv.
Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv.
Mr. Shreya’s H Kumar, Adv.
M/S Mps Legal, AOR
Mr. J.s.kini, Adv.
Mr. Prabhat Chaurasia, Adv.
Mr. Aum Kini, Adv.
Mr. Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Adv.
Ms. Kenisha Savla, Adv.
Mr. Anirudh Jamwal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. These petitions arise from the order passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay dated 18th June, 2025 in Commercial
Arbitration Application No.110 of 2025 filed by the respondents
herein under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”) with Commercial Arbitration
Petition No. 185 of 2025 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration
Act by the respondent no.1, by which the impugned order the High
Court allowed the Section 11 application and appointed an
Arbitrator.
2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by
2
SLP(C) Nos. 18578-18579/2025
the High Court appointing an Arbitrator essentially on the ground
that no Trust exists and there are no contributories and in such
circumstances the High Court could not have asked the Arbitrator to
resolve the dispute between the parties.
3. We heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, the learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kual, the learned senior
counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. Mr. Sibal has raised the following four questions of law for
the consideration of this Court:-
“(a) Whether the issue of extinguishment of a trust in
terms of the Trusts Act, which is an inherently non-
arbitrable issue, could be left open for determination
by the Arbitrator?
(b) Whether the issue of extinguishment of a trust had
a direct bearing on the threshold maintainability of
the Section 11 Application filed by Respondent No. 1?
(c) Whether a stranger i.e., Respondent No. 1, bearing
the same name as that of the trustee of an extinguished
trust, had any right to rely upon an arbitration
agreement executed between the Petitioner and the
extinguished trust?
(d) Whether the Petitioner was estopped from raising a
dispute regarding the validity of the extinguished3
SLP(C) Nos. 18578-18579/2025trust in light of the judgment dated 22 April 2025
passed in Urban Infrastructure Trustees Ltd. & Anr. v.
Kishor N. Shah & Ors., I.A No 1144 of 2021 in
Commercial Execution Application No. 194 of 2020
(“Order dated 22.04.2025”), to which the Petitioner was
not a party?”
5. Mr. Sibal strenuously urged before this Court to take into
consideration the fact that whether a Trust exists or not cannot be
resolved or looked into by an Arbitrator.
6. On the other hand, Mr.Kaul while opposing these petitions
submitted that no error not to speak of any error of law could be
said to have been committed by the High Court in appointing the
Arbitrator.
7. He would submit that all the four questions of law raised by
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner can be
looked into by the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator can take an
appropriate decision in that regard.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
having gone through the materials on record, we are of the view
that we should not interfere insofar as the appointment of the
Arbitrator is concerned. However, we request the learned Arbitrator
to first hear the parties on the four questions of law which have
4
SLP(C) Nos. 18578-18579/2025
been raised before us, referred to above.
9. The learned Arbitrator shall hear both the parties and take an
appropriate decision in accordance with law.
10. With the afore-said, these petitions stand disposed of.
11. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
(CHANDRESH) (POOJA SHARMA)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
5