1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1222 OF 2009 Kotak Mahindra Prime Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Kalsi Namrita ...Respondent. Mr. Gaurav Shrivastav i/b. Mr.Prasad Das for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 6th January, 2010. P.C.- 1 The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of The Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act) against the respondent, by making averments that the respondent has failed to make the timely payment as per the instalments. 2 Considering the averments made, on 9.10.2009 this Court has granted exparte order in terms of prayer (d) in respect of item 1 only while admitting the petition. Rule was made returnable on 27.11.2009. 3 None appeared for the respondent. However, on 27.11.2009 one Mr.Rohit Chhabria, who is the landlord of the premises, appeared and pointed that the property in question is owned by him and the respondent is the tenant. The averments are made in the petition as if the respondent 2 is the owner of the property and sought injunction with respect to the said immovable property. 4 This fact as recorded on 27.11.2009 remained uncontroverted. Therefore, the attachment/injunction as sought by the petitioner, in my view, is unjust and nothing but mis-use of the agreement as well as Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. Such petitioners are not entitled for any equitable relief. I am not deciding the right and/or merit of the claim or Arbitration proceeding, if already initiated against the respondent. All points are kept open. 5 However, in view of the above conduct itself, I am declined to grant any equitable relief to the petitioner. 6 Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to be paid to Mr.Rohit Chhabria, the the landlord whose property the petitioner sought to be attached. The cost to be paid within three weeks. The Stay also stands vacated. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)