SPB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 391 OF 2007 ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 391 OF 2007 ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 391 OF 2007 Sambhaji Abaji Shingte .. Petitioner. V/s. Jitendra Pushpakant Shah & Ors. .. Respondents. --- Mr. V.S.Kapse for the Petitioner. Mr.Jitendra P.Shah, Respondent No.1 in person present. Mr.Shakhalkar i/by A.R.Mishra for Respondent No.2. Mr.Lalit M. Chheda for Respondent No.3. --- CORAM : D.G.KARNIK,J. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK,J. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK,J. DATE : 17TH JUNE 2008 DATE : 17TH JUNE 2008 DATE : 17TH JUNE 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. By this petition the petitioner seeks an injunction restraining the respondents from alienating or parting with physical possession of the Stone Crushing Machine owned by the firm M/s. Ekveera Enterprises. Though respondent no.1 is described, in the title, as partner of Ekveera Enterprises, the firm itself is not joined as a party to the petition. 3. By the deed of partnership dated 15th of August, - 2 - 1995, the petitioner and respondent No.1 entered into a partnership to carry on business of stone crushing and supply of building materials. The partners owned the purchase of stone crusher. The same was given to the respondent No.2 on a licence under an agreement dated 5th of September, 1995. The disputes arose between the petitioner and respondent No.1 relating to the partnership. The petitioner, therefore, has sought to refer the said dispute to the arbitration It is worthy to note that neither the respondent No.2 nor the respondent No.3 are parties to the arbitration agreement As there is no agreement between the petitioner on one hand and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on the other hand regarding any dispute to be referred to the arbitration, the petition against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is not maintainable. 4. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 is not in possession of the stone crusher. Even according to the petitioner the stone crusher was given on licence to the respondent No.2. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief of injunction relating to the stone crusher qua the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as they are not parties to arbitration agreement. 5. In his affidavit dated 17th of January, 2008, the respondent No.2 has stated that the stone crushing - 3 - machine has been dismantled and sold to a scrap dealer. According to the petitioner this contention is incorrect and the crusher is still in possession of the respondent No.2. The dispute between the petitioner on the one hand and the respondent No.2 on the other hand, relating to the possession of the crusher arises under the licence agreement which does not contain any arbitration clause. In the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The arbitration petition is accordingly, dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J.) .....