1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 233 OF 2009 Gandhi Adhivitiya Combine ...Petitioner. Vs. Chandrakant P. Dodiya & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms.Dhwani Mehta i/by M/s. J. Sagar Associates for the Petitioner. Mr. M.M. Vashi i/by M/s. M.P. Vashi & Associates for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 5th AUGUST, 2009. P.C.- 1 The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (the Act), based upon the Arbitration clause in an agreement dated 23rd February, 1996, basically on an apprehension read with the averments that the Respondents are obstructing the construction/development of the plot. It is also prayed, as per Prayer clause (a) to hand over the possession of the existing tenement/ structure occupied by the Respondents, apart from the injunction order. 2. Admittedly, the Arbitrator is appointed. Considering the averments made and as the disputed rights are claimed by both the parties arising out of the agreement of the year 1996, there is no case made out to grant such 2 mandatory order as per prayer clause (a), now, at this stage, without deciding the rights of the parties. Liberty is granted to both the parties to settle the matter. Liberty is also granted to take appropriate steps or proceedings, if Respondents obstruct in the development of the remaining plot/ project. There is no case for any interim relief. The Petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. 3 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeking stay to this order. Considering the averments and the reasonings so given, it is refused. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)