S. Muralidhar, J.

1. There are two questions that arise for consideration in this petition. The first concerns the question of maintainability of this petition which challenges the order dated 18th December 2009 of a learned Arbitrator in an application filed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 ('AC Act'). The second question, which arises if the petition is held to be maintainable, is as to who is a proper party to an arbitration proceedings?

Background Facts

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is by M/s Cadre Estate Private Limited ('CEPL') which claims to have purchased a property bearing No. L-10, New Delhi South Extension Part-II, New Delhi admeasuring 495 sq. yards ('property in question') on 31st December, 2008 for a consideration of Rs.7.50 crores by virtue of a tripartite agreement executed between the Petitioner, Shri Saroj Kumar Bagaria (`Bagaria') Respondent No. 2 herein and the Punjab National Bank ('PNB'), Respondent No. 3 herein in full and final settlement of the claims of PNB against Respondent No. 2 under a One Time Settlement ('OTS'). The Petitioner claims that after the payment of Rs.7.5 crores b