Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Heritage Lifestyles & Developers Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking interim relief against respondents including a tenant (Respondent no.3) who was not a party to the development agreement dated 15 December 2009. The development agreement was between the petitioner, the housing society (Respondent no.1), and the landlord (Respondent no.2). The tenant was in possession of the premises and was unwilling to vacate for development. The landlord and society had no objection to the development but the landlord could not hand over possession due to tenancy proceedings. The court noted that the tenant was not a party to the arbitration agreement and therefore no interim relief under Section 9 could be granted against him. The petition was dismissed as against the tenant, and the court declined to grant any relief against the other respondents as they had no objection. The court held that the remedy, if any, lies elsewhere and not under Section 9 of the Act.
Headnote
A) Arbitration Law - Interim Relief - Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Third Party - The petitioner sought interim relief against a tenant who was not a party to the development agreement containing the arbitration clause. The court held that Section 9 relief cannot be granted against a person who is not a party to the arbitration agreement. The petition was dismissed as against the tenant. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 can be granted against a person who is not a party to the arbitration agreement.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed as against Respondent no.3. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act
- 1996
- interim relief
- third party
- arbitration agreement
- party to agreement
- tenant
- landlord
- development agreement
