1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO.77 OF 2008 M/s.Convenience Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. M/s. Ozo Media Estate Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents. .... Mr. Gagan Chhabra i/b. Mr. H. V. Chande for the Petitioner. Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.K. Samdani and Mr. Venkatesh Dhond i/b. M/s. Prakash & Co. for Respondent No.1. Dr.Virendra Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sunil Patel i/b. Sunil & Co. for Respondent No.2. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. February 8, 2008. P.C.: Relief has been sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, on the basis of an agreement for development that was entered into between the First and Second Respondents on 4th January 2006. The Petitioner had agreed to purchase the premises in a commercial complex that was being developed by the First Respondent in pursuance of the agreement for development. An 2 arbitration clause, Clause 28, is to be found only in the agreement between the Petitioner and the First Respondent. The Second Respondent who is the owner of the land is not a party to the agreement between the Petitioner and the First Respondent. Relief in proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is in aid of an award that may be passed in the arbitral proceedings. The Second Respondent who admittedly is the owner of the land is not a party to the arbitration agreement. An order of injunction that has been sought against the Respondents from selling or creating any third party interests in respect of the property cannot in any event be granted against the Second Respondent. The First Respondent is admittedly not the owner of the land. The contention of the the First and Second Respondents is that in terms of clauses (2-b) and 7(2), the development agreement has come to an end. It is not necessary for this Court to enter any finding on the nature of the agreement between the the First and 3 Second Respondents. The fact remains that the the Second Respondent is not a party to the arbitration agreement. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged that the agreement between the Petitioner and the First Respondent alludes to the agreement between the First and Second Respondents. That by itself cannot confer jurisdiction on the Court to grant relief against someone who is not a party to the arbitration agreement. No relief of injunction can, in the circumstances, be granted. The Arbitration Petition is accordingly dismissed. ......