JUDGMENT :

G.S. Kulkarni, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This is a petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, "ACA"); whereby the petitioner who is appointed as a developer by respondent No. 1 society (for short 'the Society') has prayed for the following interim reliefs pending the arbitral proceedings:-

"(a) that pending the commencement and culmination of the arbitral proceedings this Hon'ble Court be pleased to appoint the Court Receiver, High Court, Bombay or any other fit and proper person as Receiver of the subject premises described in Exhibit 'B" hereto with all powers under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, including power to take physical possession of the subject premises described in the Exhibit 'B' hereto from respondent Nos. 2 to 5, their family members and/or any person found in possession thereof, with the help of police assistance, if necessary, including by breaking open of lock and to hand over the same to the petitioner for demolition and redevelopment of the property described in Exhibit 'A' hereto;

(b) that pending the commencement and culmination of the arbitral proceedings this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an order and injunction retraining the respondent Nos. 2 to 5, their family members, servants, agents and any person claiming by, through and/or under them or any one or more of them from in any manner, selling, transferring, alienating, dealing with, disposing off and/or creating third party rights and/or encumbrances in respect of the subject premises described in Exhibit 'B' hereto or any part thereof and/or parting with possession thereof and/or obstructing, interfering with and/or creating hurdles in redevelopment of the property described in Exhibit 'A' hereto by the petitioner, in any manner whatsoever"

3. It is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 society has entered into development agreement dated 8th November, 2012 with the petitioner for redevelopment of the building of the society, which has about 12 members. It is also not in dispute and as can be seen at page No. 175 to 184, that the condition of the building is extremely dangerous. There is an order passed by this court that the occupants more particularly, respondent No. 2, and respondent Nos. 3 to 5 shall occupy the premises at their risk and consequences.

4. It had so transpired that earlier the Society intended to appoint a developer by name M/s. Laxmi Constructions. The Society did not enter into a development agreement with the said M/s. Laxmi Constructions as the terms could not be finalized. It was thus only a stage of negotiation. Nonetheless M/s. Laxmi Constructions approached this Court in a Suit bearing No. 2457 of 2011 against society. In the said suit, M/s. Laxmi Constructions could not succeed in getting any interim relief of a temporary injunction against the society. On 28.11.2011, the only order which was passed in the said suit was to the effect of learned counsel for the society made a statement that the society will not conclude any agreement with any other party qua the development of the society's premises, before expiry of a period of four weeks from the date of the service of a written notice to M/s. Laxmi Construction's advocates stating their intention to do so.

5. Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, not granting any temporary injunction against the society, M/s. Laxmi Constructions approached the appeal court. In the said Appeal, the Division Bench of this Court refused to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The order passed by the First Court dated 5th January 2012 on the said appeal reads thus:-

"(1) Appeal is directed against the order dated 28th November 2011 by which the learned Single Judge of this Court declined to grant ad-interim injunction as prayed by the appellant/plaintiff, but after recording statement of respondent/defendant Society that the respondent will not conclude any agreemen