1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Notice of Motion No. 3378 OF 2009 IN Arbitration Appeal No. 9 of 2009 Naresh Kanayalal Rajwani ....Appellant v/s. M/s. Nensee Constructions ....Respondents Jitendra Shukla i/b. M/s. G.H. Shukla & co. for the appellant. Advocate Vishal Kanade i/b. Negandhi Shah and Himayatullah for respondents 1, 4 & 5. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED:- September 18, 2009. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Appeal is directed against the order passed by the sole Arbitrator dated 29/7/2009. The order records that the parties agreed and called upon the Arbitrator to decide the point of jurisdiction qua Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to the counter claim. The Arbitrator has examined that contention and has answered against the Appellant on the finding that Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 are not parties to the Arbitration agreement. No fault can be found with the said view taken 2 by the Arbitrator If the said Respondents were not party to the arbitration agreement, the Arbitrator would not be competent to examine the dispute inter se sans the arbitration agreement between them. The only argument that is canvassed before this Court is that neither the claimant nor the Respondents 4 & 5 in their written-statement have specifically raised the objection regarding jurisdiction of the Arbitrator. Indeed, it is conceded that the claimant had filed application under Section 16(2) of the Act. The fact that the objection was not taken in the written-statement will, therefore, not be of any avail to the Appellant more particularly for having agreed before the Arbitrator to permit the Arbitrator to answer the objection raised by the claimant as recorded in Paragraph 10 of the impugned decision. 3. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, no interference is warranted. Hence dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal, no further order is required in the Notice of Motion. The same is also dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)