In a recent decision made on February 3, 2026, by Judge Somasekhar Sundaresan at the Bombay High Court, the court canceled an arbitration decision involving Jinam Arihant Realtors and Neha Yogesh Sachde. The case was about disagreements between business partners and cash dealings.
Jinam Arihant Realtors, a business partnership, was formed with an agreement dated December 12, 2011. Neha Yogesh Sachde owned a 15% share, while the other partners owned the remaining 85%. The company planned to develop a building project in Goregaon, but the project was halted due to disagreements over who owned the property.
The arbitration decision dated April 29, 2023, was in favor of Neha Yogesh Sachde, stating that the partnership agreement was valid and that the partners needed to provide financial accounts. Neha Yogesh Sachde claimed she invested Rs. 60 lakhs, with Rs. 48 lakhs in cash, and wanted her fair share. The arbitrator decided that the partnership ended on September 27, 2019, and ordered payments to Neha Yogesh Sachde.
The people challenging the decision argued that it was incorrect, especially criticizing the use of audio recordings as proof of cash investments. Pankaj, Neha Yogesh Sachde's father, provided these recordings, claiming they showed proof of the cash investment, but the recordings were questioned for their authenticity and relevance.
"The audio recordings and their transcripts are said to have been made at a meeting held in the office of Sharma with Rasiklal and Sharma."
Judge Sundaresan found the arbitration decision to be unreasonable and against public policy. The court noted that the evidence presented, mainly unclear voice recordings, did not convincingly prove the cash investment by Neha Yogesh Sachde.
"The decision strongly supports Neha Yogesh Sachde. The arbitration panel has decided that Neha Yogesh Sachde has proved that a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs had been invested – Rs. 12 lakhs by cheque and Rs. 48 lakhs in cash."
The judgment emphasized that the dealings were conducted in cash, outside formal accounts, indicating potential illegality. As a result, enforcing the decision would go against basic public policy.
The court canceled the arbitration decision, emphasizing the need for legality and transparency in business dealings. This judgment highlights the judiciary's role in ensuring justice aligns with public policy and legal standards.
