:1: :1: :1: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1552 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s Orders Orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.P.S.Dani, Adv. for the petitioners. Mr.V.A.Shastri, Adv. for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 24TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the petition and the Annexures thereto and the impugned Order rejecting the Application preferred by the original Defendant nos.1 an 2 in Sp.Civil Suit No.1421 of 2006. The Application invokes Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Application relied upon Clause-14 of the Deed of Partnership, a Copy of :2: :2: :2: which is annexed to the petition paper-book. 2. The Trial Court has while rejecting the Application held that all ingredients of Section 8 are not satisfied in this case. Assuming that the Application was maintainable, although a Written Statement has been filed on record by the petitioners, yet, for the purposes of grant of relief, the court below was required to be satisfied with regard to the ingredients of Section 8. In the Decisions relied upon by the Trial Court, it is clear that the conditions which are condition precedent have to be satisfied before the Judicial Authority is Mandated to refer the matter to Arbitration. It is not enough that some of the parties to the suit are covered by the Arbitration Agreement or some of the disputes. The law is well settled. In the instant case, the Agreement Clause 14, prima-facie, binds the partners or their legal representatives. The suit is filed not just against the partners and the Firm, but against :3: :3: :3: a Public Trust as well, which has the ownership rights ,but, its land was granted for development purposes to the First Defendant Firm. Thus, the suit claim seen as a whole would indicate that apart from the fact as to whether the development rights would constitute the Asset of the Firm or not, there are disputes raised with the persons who are not parties to the Arbitration Agreement. The Trial Court was therefore right in rejecting the Application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 3. There is also substance in the contention that the Application was preferred after the suit summons was served. Thereafter, another Application under Section 9A of the CPC was filed. On 20.01.2007 a Written Statement is also filed. In such circumstances, when the Application was disposed off by the Trial Court and even during the pendency of the same, a Written Statement was there on record. In such circumstances, even otherwise this Application :4: :4: :4: was not maintainable. 4. For the above reasons, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is dismissed. No costs. *********