1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 453 OF 2009 S.R.Doshi Finance and Investment Ltd. .... Petitioners vs Beena S. Chandnani & 5 ors. .... Respondents Mr. P. G. Lad for the petitioner. Ms. Mili Thakkar with Mr.Vipul Shukla for respondents 1 to 3. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 27th August, 2009 P.C.: 1 The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act), pending the arbitration proceedings. The arbitration is going on since 2006. Admittedly, there is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the petitioner and respondents 1 and 2 with regard to a plot owned by respondent no.6-CIDCO. 2 Admittedly, respondent no.6 is not party to this dispute. 3 Therefore, in absence of specific averments in the petition which is necessary for grant of interim relief and as the averments are vague, this itself is sufficient not to grant interim protection under Section 9 of the Act, specially when Respondent no.6 is the owner of the property. The lease right or interest, 2 even if any, between the parties unless decided finally and specially after the sanction of respondent no.6, I am not inclined to grant any relief under Section 9 of the Act at this stage in this petition. 4 However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take out appropriate application before the Tribunal for reliefs, if any. 5 In view of this, I am not inclined to continue the order of maintaining status-quo in question with regard to the property in view of above itself. 6 The Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)