Facts and Procedural Background:

• Respondent No. 1, Aurora Properties, was initially appointed to develop a property under a slum rehabilitation scheme. Aurora later assigned part of its rights to Respondent No. 2 via a sub-development agreement. Respondent No. 2 then entered an agreement with Bhojwani, entitling him to 55% of the development area, while Respondent No. 2 retained 45%.
• Due to disputes and Aurora's lack of consent, a tripartite agreement was executed, increasing Aurora's entitlement to 22,500 sq. ft. from the previous 15,000 sq. ft., which would be allocated from Respondent No. 2's share.
• As disputes arose over rights to developed areas, Aurora filed a suit seeking specific performance of the agreements, including possession of 22,500 sq. ft. in the form of 12 flats and corresponding parking spaces. They claimed Bhojwani had created third-party rights over these spaces without transferring their rightful share.
• The Appellant sought to refer the dispute to arbitration. However, the Bombay High Court, and subsequently the Supreme Court, dismissed the Appellant’s requests under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, since the Tripartite Agreement did not contain an arbitration clause.
• During proceedings, Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed Consent Terms in 2017, resolving to transfer 8 flats and 16 parking spaces to Respondent No.1 in settlement. A single judge endorsed this settlement, mandating the appellant deliver the apartments to Respondent No.1.
• The Single Judge upheld the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Consent Terms, directing the Appellant to hand over 8 flats and 16 parking spaces to Respondent No.1. It emphasised that the arbitrator’s apportionment of flats was binding. The Appellant’s claims regarding Respondent No.2’s breaches were dismissed. Respondent No.1’s entitlement to the flats was affirmed as per the terms.
• The Division Bench dismissed the Appellant's appeal, affirming the Single Judge's decision. It agreed that the arbitrator's apportionment of flats was binding and could not be challenged. The court upheld Respondent No.1’s entitlement to the flats and parking spaces. The appeal was rejected, confirming the injunction to transfer the properties.
• Hence, this appeal was filed.
  
  

Main Issue:

• Whether the application of the principle of moulding reliefs at the interlocutory stage rather than reserving it for the final decision in the main suit by the Learned Single Judge and Division Bench was justified?