Important Point – For invocation of Section 9 of the Act, basic mandate is that there should be an arbitration agreement between parties.

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties heard finally.

2. The Appellant has preferred this Appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act’) as the learned Single Judge by impugene order dated 2 September 2015 rejected the section 9 application filed by the Appellant, and refused to grant any injunctory protection in respect of the property described in the MOU dated 31.10.2014/14.8.2014. Admittedly, respondent no.2 is in possession of the property based upon the registered agreement dated 13 August 2014. There is also no issue that full consideration has been paid based upon the agreement. For invocation of section 9 of the Act, the basic mandate is that there should be an arbitration agreement between the parties. Admittedly, there is no such arbitration agreement between respondent no.2 and appellant (Original petitioner). Even the arbitration clause in the third party MOU in no way is sufficient to invoke section 9 Application, merely because the property is the same as respondent no.2 is admittedly not a party to this third party MOU.

3. The presence of the parties in question, in the stated meetings even if any at this stage, is not sufficient to accept the case of the Petitioner/Appellant for reliefs so prayed. Specifically there is nothing pointed out even from MOUs that registered agreement entered with Respondent No.2 was superseded at any point of time. As noted Respondent no.2 is not a party to this MOU. The nature of the transactions and/or reasons for those transactions even if any, as relied in the MOU in any way at this stage, is not sufficient to grant the reliefs so prayed by invoking section 9 Petition on the foundation of the arbitration agreement/clause so referred in MOU. The reliefs so sought are against respondent no.2 who is admittedly not the party to the MOU and/or any other subsequent transactions.

4. A submission is also made and which we have also noted that Respondent no.1 who alleged to have entered into the agreement (MOU) with the Petitioner, though served, is not present. He did not appear also before the learned Single Judge. The Respondent no.1 has entered into such MOU inspite of the registered agreement so referred above. This conduct in our view, is also a relevant factor. It goes against the Appellant/Petitioner basically at this stage of the proceedings as the reliefs are sought by the Appellant based upon the MOU with Respondent no.1. Therefore, taking an over all view of the matter and based upon the above position and reasons so given by the learned Single Judge and for reasons so recorded, we see no case made out by the Appellant to interfere with the order. These observations are for deciding this Appeal only. Appeal is therefore, dismissed.

No costs.