:1: 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 APPEAL (L) NO. 665 OF 2008 APPEAL (L) NO. 665 OF 2008 APPEAL (L) NO. 665 OF 2008 IN IN IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 32 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION NO. 32 OF 2008 REVIEW PETITION NO. 32 OF 2008 IN IN IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2618 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2618 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2618 OF 2008 IN IN IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 333 OF 2008 ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 333 OF 2008 ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 333 OF 2008 AND AND AND APPEAL (L) NO. 666 OF 2008 APPEAL (L) NO. 666 OF 2008 APPEAL (L) NO. 666 OF 2008 IN IN IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2618 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2618 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2618 OF 2008 IN IN IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 333 OF 2008 ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 333 OF 2008 ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 333 OF 2008 Citicorp Finance (India) Ltd. ..Appellant (Orig.Petr.) versus Noorjahan Salim Basha & Ors. ..Respondents Ms. Shakuntala Joshi for the Appellant. Mr. S. C. Naidu with N. P. Dalvi and S. R. Ingule for the Respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. AND S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATE : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008. DATE : 12TH NOVEMBER, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Vide order dated 7.8.2008 Notice of Motion No. 2618 of 2008 an application filed by the Intervenor was allowed and the Intervenor was permitted to be heard in the matter relating to a :2: Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, 1996. The Appellant herein then filed an application seeking Review of the Order dated 7.8.2008 raising various grounds. This application came to be dismissed vide Order dated 15.10.2008 Correctness and legality of these two orders thus have been questioned by the present Appellant / Original Petitioner in Appeal (L) No. 665 of 2008 and Appeal (L) NO. 666 of 2008 respectively. 2. Notice. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondents accepts notice and waives service. We have heard learned counsel for the Appellant and the Respondents, and with the consent of the parties, we finally dispose of both the Appeals. 3. A Petition under Section 9 had been filed by the Petitioner / Appellant herein seeking interim relief in regard to the machinery in question which is stated to have been hypothecated to the Petitioner and the Intervenor also claimed hypothecation of the said machinery to her by an independent agreement. The Court Receiver had handed over custody of the said machines to the Petitioner on 17.7.2008. Thereafter, the application was filed. The learned Single Judge :3: after hearing the parties, expressed the prima facie view that the Intervenor was the person interested in the goods and it was just and fair that she was permitted to intervene in the Arbitration Petition. 4. The main argument raised before us is that the goods have been hypothecated to the Appellant / Petitioner. The Arbitration Agreement was only between two parties and there was no scope for permitting intervention by the Applicant. We see no reason in the impugned orders in as much as the learned Single Judge has only permitted the Applicant / Intervenor to be heard in the matter and the Notice of Motion praying for interim directions in regard to the hypothecated machinery are stated to be heard and decided finally by the learned Single Judge. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant / Petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 22.4.2008 in the case of Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. vs. M/s AES Aerospace Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. vs. M/s AES Aerospace Pawan Hans Helicopters Ltd. vs. M/s AES Aerospace Ltd. Ltd. Ltd. to contend that intervention cannot be permitted. The Judgment relied upon has no application to the facts of the present case in as much as in that case the Court had observed that the :4: Petitioner in the petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act was the absolute owner of the goods in question. While in the present case the learned Judge has expressed a prima facie view that the Intervenor is interested in the goods and that view is obviously subject to the final orders that may be passed by the learned Single Judge in the proceedings pending before the Court. We see no reason to interfere. Both the Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE CHIEF JUSTICE S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J. S. A. BOBDE, J.