Authority: Supreme Court of India
Order Date: 19-08-2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Sunteck Private Realtors Limited (petitioner) vs. Bandra Sea Breeze Apartments Co‑operative Housing Society Limited (respondent); developer also represented.
- Origin: Special Leave Petitions (C) Nos. 25028‑25029/2026 arising from impugned final judgment and orders dated 06‑04‑2026 (Interim Application No. 36439/2025, CAA(L) No. 35818/2025) and 18‑04‑2026 (same CAA(L) No.) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay.
- Counsel: Petitioner's senior counsel – Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv., and Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.; Respondent's senior counsel – Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv., and Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv.; Developer's counsel – C.A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv.
- Grievances raised: (i) Division Bench allegedly did not hear merits and foreclosed right to seek interim relief before the arbitrator; (ii) Concern that paragraph 40 of the Single Judge’s order and the operative part of the Division Bench’s order might be interpreted as barring the petitioner from seeking specific performance as a final relief in arbitration.
- Court’s examination: Perused the Memorandum of Agreed Terms (MOAT), correspondence between parties, termination letter dated 06‑09‑2025, and judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench. Concluded no ground for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Final Outcome
- The Supreme Court clarified that the petitioner is entitled to pray for specific performance of the MOAT before the arbitrator, while the respondent may raise all objections available to it.
- The orders of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench are upheld.
- The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of.
- All pending applications related to the matter are also disposed of.
- The arbitrator will decide the dispute on its own merits, uninfluenced by the Court’s observations.
Topics: Arbitration, Specific Performance, Supreme Court Order