1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 774 OF 2009 Jayant R. Patel ...Petitioner. Vs. Siddarth Colony Hitsarankshan CHS Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh for the Petitioner. Mr. R.R. Sharma for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 21st November, 2009. P.C.- 1 As per the Petitioner, Respondent No.1-society has appointed Respondent No.2 as a new developer in the year 2004, and therefore, the present Petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act), for interim protection and measure. 2 The fact remains that the new developer-Respondent No.2, is appointed in the year 2004 itself and the construction work is in progress. There is arbitration clause. The Petitioner has already invoked the same. 3 In view of this itself, I see there is no reason and case made out by the Petitioner for interim reliefs/ protection as prayed. 4 Keeping all points open, the present Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)