Arb.P. 135/2006 Mangla Advisory P. Lt. v.Cybizcall (International) & Anr. Page 1 Of 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Reserve: August 07, 2009 Date of Order: August 31, 2009 +Arb. P.135/2006 % 31.08.2009 Mangla Advisory Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner Through: Mr. Kirti Uppal, Advocate Versus Cybizcall (International) & Anr. ...Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Advocate JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? 3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? JUDGMENT 1. This petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 has been preferred by the petitioner. 2. I have dismissed another petition under Section 11 of the petitioner for appointment of an arbitrator. This petition is maintainable only if the disputes between the parties are referable to an arbitrator. Since the disputes itself are not referable to the arbitrator and this Court has refused to appoint an arbitrator, this petition/ application under Section 9 is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs. August 31, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J. rd