Mahindra Mangilalji Jain v. M/s Radha Construction Co
Invocation of Arbitration Clause from a Principal Deed for Disputes Arising under a Simultaneously Executed Ancillary MOU forming a Composite Transaction.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-OS:5596
Decision Date: 04-03-2026
List of Laws
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; Indian Partnership Act, 1932; Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016; Doctrine of Composite Transaction; Doctrine of Approbate and Reprobate
- Facts: The Petitioner was a partner in M/s Radha Construction Co (Respondent No. 1). On 16 October 2017, the parties executed four simultaneous documents to facilitate the Petitioner's exit from the firm: a Retirement-cum-Partnership Deed, a Deed of Cancellation, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and an Allotment Letter. The Retirement Deed contained an arbitration clause, but the MOU, which specified the payment of Rs. 17.60 crores as retirement consideration and provided 5,000 sq. ft. of commercial space as security, did not. When the Respondents failed to pay the agreed consideration, the Petitioner sought interim measures under Section 9 and the appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11. The Respondents opposed the applications, arguing that the dispute arose from the MOU, which lacked an arbitration agreement, and that the original partnership relationship had perished upon the execution of the new contract.
- Procedural Posture: The matter came before the Bombay High Court as a Commercial Arbitration Application for the appointment of an arbitrator and a Commercial Arbitration Petition seeking interim protective measures.
- Issue: Whether an arbitration clause contained in a Retirement Deed can be invoked to adjudicate disputes arising out of a simultaneously executed MOU that lacks such a clause but forms part of the same composite transaction.
- Holding: Yes, the arbitration clause in the main document (Retirement Deed) governs the disputes arising out of the ancillary document (MOU) as they constitute a single composite transaction.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the four documents were executed simultaneously to achieve a common commercial goal: the Petitioner's exit from the partnership. Relying on Apex Court precedents in Ameet Lalchand Shah and Cox and Kings Ltd., the Court held that where multiple agreements are interlinked and the performance of the principal agreement (the retirement) is facilitated by supplementary agreements (the MOU and Allotment Letter), they must be read as a composite transaction. The MOU "had no legs to stand on" without the Retirement Deed. Furthermore, the Court rejected the "doctrine of election" argument, noting that the Petitioner was merely seeking to preserve the subject matter of the dispute. Consequently, the Court appointed a Sole Arbitrator and continued the interim protection by maintaining the Court Receiver's possession of the secured units.
🔒 For Members Only