1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION MAPPL/3/2009 IN ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO.621 OF 2009 Suresh J. Pimparkar ...Petitioner. Vs. Charkop Om Gayatri CHS Ltd. ...Respondents and Shri Vasantsingh Rajpurohit .. Intervenor Mr.V.V.Salunke for the Petitioner. Mr.S.L.Prabhu for the Intervenor. Ms.Gauri S. Dalvi i/b. Mr.V.M. Joshi for the respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 7th November, 2009. P.C.- 1 This is an application of the applicant/an intervenor seeking an intervention in the Arbitration Petition filed by the petitioner against the respondents under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act), whereby a challenge is made to the Arbitral Award arising out of a dispute and arbitration agreement between the parties, where the intervenor was not a party. 2 Therefore, the issue is, whether a third person can intervene in a proceeding like this under Section 34 of the Act. 2 3 Admittedly, the intervenor was not the party to the basic agreement between the parties where there is an arbitration clause. Admittedly, there is a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent/society. The applicant/intervenor is a subsequent purchaser. Principally, a person/party who is not a party to the arbitration agreement cannot be permitted to intervene in a petition under Section 34 of the Act against the Award. The remedy is elsewhere. It is not permissible in view of the scheme and purpose of the Arbitration Act itself, besides want of agreement. The dispute of the third person or a member of the society against the society, is no reason to permit such person and even to add as a party now. There was no such application moved before the Arbitral Tribunal. 4 The applicant/intervenor’s dispute, even if any, is with the respondent/society. That, even otherwise, cannot be gone into in this proceeding. I am not deciding any right of the intervenor. The liberty is granted to the intervenor to move appropriate application and/or proceedings to settle their dispute, if any. 5 Resultantly, the present Misc. Application is rejected as it is not maintainable. No costs. 6 Arbitration Petition (Lodging) No.621/2009 is adjourned to 5.12.2009. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)