BVM Engineering Industries Limited v. Imperia Heights Private Limited & Anr.

1. The present contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 24th June, 2025, passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator in an application filed under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“Arbitration Act”), in the matter bearing Case No. DIAC/9857/12-24, titled as BVM Engineering Industries Limited Versus Imperia Heights Private Limited & Anr.

2. The relevant portions of the order dated 24th June, 2025, as passed by the learned Sole Arbitrator, read as under: “xxx xxx xxx

3. Thus, by way of the aforesaid order, the respondents herein were directed to resume the re-development and construction work at the site in question, in terms of the Principal Collaboration Agreement and subsequent Supplementary Agreements.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid order passed by the learned Arbitrator has attained finality, as the appeals against the said order already stand rejected.

5. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the order dated 25th February, 2026, wherein, certain timelines with regard to the work to be undertaken were noted. The order dated 25th February, 2026, passed by this Court, reads as under: xxx xxx xxx”

6. Today, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite the aforesaid timelines, being noted by this Court on 25th February, 2026, the respondents have failed to comply with the same.

7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has handed over to this Court, a copy of the Affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent on 11th July, 2026 in terms of order dated 07th May, 2026.

8. The said affidavit is taken on record.

9. By referring to the aforesaid Affidavit, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the timelines have not been met by the respondents.

10. In response, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the structure of the building in question is complete. Further, the re-development and construction work at the site in question, shall be completed by 31st March, 2027.

11. At this stage, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not being granted access to the site, though he is the co-owner of the property.

12. In response, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was interfering in the construction work being carried out at the site. However, the access of the petitioner to the site in question, has never been denied.

13. Accordingly, considering the submissions made before this Court, the undertaking on behalf of the respondents that the work shall be completed in terms of the Collaboration Agreement dated 10th July, 2013 and subsequent Supplementary Agreements, executed between the parties, by 31st March, 2027, is taken note of.

14. The respondents are held bound by the aforesaid undertaking.

15. It is further directed that the petitioner shall be granted access to the premises, i.e., A-20, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi-110044.