1 arp48-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.48 OF 2009 Rajashree Shelters Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. Rajiv D. Shah HUF ....Respondent Mr.G.S. Godbole with Mr.Nitin Mulye for the Petitioner. Mr.Suresh Sabrad i/b Mr.Gautam Kamble for Respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The petition has been filed under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. The parties have entered into a development agreement dated 8.9.1994. The respondents had terminated the same. The termination was challenged by the petitioner by filing a suit in the year 1996. The consent terms have been arrived at. Thereafter the parties entered into a supplementary agreement dated 10.5.1999. I will, for the purpose of this petition, ignore the fact that the parties did not have the same recorded by the Court which disposed of the suit in terms of the earlier consent terms. Clause 32 of the supplementary agreement reads as under :- “32. It is further agreed between the parties hereto that in case of any disputes and differences between the parties hereto in respect of any matter arising out of the said Conveyance including the interpretation of any of the terms and conditions contained therein between the 2 arp48-09 parties hereto and/or their respective heirs and executors the same shall be referred to Mr.Manishbhai S. Parekh and Mr.Ram C. Jethani, Advocates of the Owners and Confirming Party of the one part and the Advocates of the Developers and then decision shall be final and binding upon the parties hereto.” 3. The disputes and differences agreed to be referred to arbitration were those arising out of the “said conveyance”. No conveyance was executed. I will read the expression “said conveyance” liberally to mean a conveyance which the parties contemplated executing under clause 30 of the supplementary agreement. Even that would not be of any assistance to the petitioner. The petitioner is not satisfied by referring only those disputes which arise under the conveyance/proposed conveyance but also desires to seek reliefs beyond the same including against the parties who are not the parties to the supplementary agreement. 4. Added to this is the fact that the petitioner had also filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No.325 of 2008 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kalyan where the reliefs pertaining to the above agreement including the supplementary agreement have been sought including those which form part of the letter invoking the arbitration clause. This suit has been filed against other third parties as well. 5. In the circumstances, the arbitration petition is dismissed.