1 16.arbp.1217.10 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1217 OF 2010 WITH CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 1494 OF 2010 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1217 OF 2010 Hemendra P. Bosmiya ....Petitioner V/s. Bilgu Bihari Yadav & Anr. ....Respondents Mr.D.H.Mehta a/w. Mr.Dhawal Mehta i/by D.M.Legal Assoc. for the Petitioner and in support of Chamber Summons. Mr.Pradeep J. Thorat for the Respondent. Mr.Chirag Balsara i/by Negandhi Shah & Himaytullah for proposed Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 25 th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. :- 1. This is an application under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The Petitioner seeks to enforce his rights under an agreement dated 30th October 2005 entered into with the Respondents. The agreement is for the joint development of their property. 3. Mr.Balsara, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the proposed Respondent in Chamber Summons No.1494 of 2010 submits that he is not a party to the agreement and therefore no reliefs under Section 9 of the Act can be granted against him. He submits that the 2 16.arbp.1217.10 Respondent had executed a conveyance dated 21st December 2009 in his favour under which the Respondent has conveyed his undivided share therein to the proposed Respondent. Mr.Thorat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent states that the Respondent has title only to an undivided 50% share in the property. Thus, although the agreement is for the joint development of the entire property, the rights of third parties namely N.D.Enterprises and one Kalu Yadav are also involved. Their rights are in respect of the same property which forms the subject matter of the present petition and the proposed arbitration proceedings. Mr.Balsara submits that the proposed Respondent has obtained a conveyance even from the third party in respect of their share in the property which forms the subject matter of the said agreement dated 30th October 2005. 4. Prima Facie , therefore, it is doubtful that the Petitioner can succeed in having disputes and differences referred to arbitration as against all these parties. It may be necessary for the Petitioner to file composite proceedings against them. The application for interim reliefs in this petition is, therefore, rejected only for this reason, without going into the merits of the rival contentions. In the event of the Petitioner succeeding in an application under Section 11, liberty to apply afresh. 5. The proposed Respondent shall furnish copies of the alleged agreements / conveyances in their favour from the Respondents and any other third party in respect of the said property. -