The court found that no interim measures could be granted against the respondent no.2, who was not a party to the arbitration agreement and was not claiming through the respondent no.1.

1. By this petition filed under section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “Arbitration Act”), the petitioner has prayed for interim measures against both the respondents such as injunction against respondent no.2 from permitting any further construction on S.R. Scheme No.1 on different plots, to forthwith take steps to revoke permissions approved on the three plots, including plot of the petitioner, for appointment of the Court Receiver, injunction, for direction to deposit various amounts, to provide the bank guarantee etc. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :

2. The respondent no.1 is the developer with whom the petitioner had entered into an agreement for development of the property of the society. The respondent no.2 is an authority constituted by the State Government.

3. On 25th February, 2008, the petitioner entered into an agreement for development with the respondent no.1. On 13th February, 2009, the petitioner and the respondent no.1 executed a further Writing i.e. Addendum-cum-Deed of Rectification thereby modifying some of the terms of the development agreement dated 25th February, 2008. Under the said development agreement, the respondent no.1 agreed to carry out construction on the plot of land bearing CTS No.310/B on the terms and conditions recorded therein. It is the case of the petitioner under the said development agreement that the respondent no.1 agreed to carry out development by obtaining sanctioned plan from the Municipal Corporation as per the provisions of the Development Control Regulation, 1991 (for short “D.C. Regulation”). It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no.1 however, without the consent of the petitioner or no objection got approved to the slum rehabilitation scheme now being carried out on the said plot bearing CTS No.310/B along with two other plots.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that some time in the month of December, 2013, the petitioner came to know that the respondent no.1 had applied for sanction of the slum rehabilitation scheme under regulation 33(14)(D) on the plot bearing CTS No.310/B of the petitioner and other two plots and the same was sanctioned by the respondent no.2.

5. By a letter dated 23rd April, 2013, the petitioner referred to the permanent alternate accommodation agreement sent by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner and objected to clause 17 of the said agreement as suggested by the respondent no.1 to the effect that the developer shall be solely and exclusively entitled to use and utilize the facade, compound and other common areas in the new building for the purpose of advertising, affixing hoardings etc. and contended that the petitioner had exclusive rights to use and utilize the facade, compound and other common areas and not the developer. The petitioner called upon the respondent no.1 to delete clause 17 from the said permanent alternate accommodation agreement.

6. By a notice of its advocate dated 10th February, 2014, addressed to the respondent no.1, the petitioner replied to the letter dated 20th January, 2014 of the respondent no.1 and contended that the respondent no.1 was not entitled to develop the property under the S.R.A. Scheme and alleged that the carpet areas of the flat premises allotted to the Chairman of the petitioner society shown in the plans got sanctioned by the respondent no.1 and in the permanent alternate accommodation areas undertaken by the respondent no.1 to be provided to the existing members of the society in the new building did not match and that was not in consonance therewith. The petitioner also alleged various breaches on the part of the respondent no.1 of its obligation under the said development agreement and Addendum-cum-Deed of Rectification and called upon the respondent no.1 to comply with the same.

7. The petitioner through its advocate's letter dated 19th December, 2013 to the Chief Executive officer of the Slum Rehabilitat