1 chs665-11 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.665 OF 2011 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.42 OF 2011 Sharad Shah ....Plaintiff V/s. Sonata Realty Pvt. Ltd. ....Defendant And Shree Shubh Builders Pvt. Ltd. ....Applicant Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Counsel with Mr.Simil Purohit i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Plaintiff. Mr.Alok Bagla i/b M/s.Bagla Dandekar & Co. for the Defendant. Mr.Rishab Shah with Ms.Shivani Bansal i/b Raval Shah & Co. for the Applicant. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. :- 1. It is not necessary to consider the maintainability of the application or the petition on the ground that the applicant in the Chamber Summons is a third party, which is not a party to the arbitration agreement. 2. The applicant claimed to have entered into an M.O.U. dated 4.6.2009. The petitioner’s agreement with the respondent is dated 2.2.2009. 3. Mr.Tulzapurkar, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner opposed the application for intervention. It was however, clarified that if the applicant is not allowed to intervene irrespective of the 2 chs665-11 merits of the disputes between the parties, any order passed in this chamber summons cannot and will not affect the third party. Mr.Tulzapurkar however, pointed out that even under the alleged M.O.U. between the respondent and the applicant, the respondent is entitled to substantial rights and that it cannot therefore deal with such rights. 4. As far as the rights of the respondent are concerned, there is merit in the contention. 5. In the circumstances, the application for intervention is dismissed. There shall be an order in terms of the ad-interim order dated 22.12.2010 with a clarification that the same will not affect the rights, if any, of the applicant in any manner whatsoever. It is further clarified that the order will however, operate in respect of the rights of the respondent under the alleged M.O.U. dated 4.6.2009. In other words, the applicant shall not be entitled to deal with the rights of the respondent under the alleged M.O.U. dated 4.6.2009. The petition is accordingly disposed of.