The High Court · 2025

Petition under llection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in r;upport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operatio r of the order of lower court in l.A. No 13012023 in C.O.P. No.8912022, daled.22-11-2023 on the frle of The Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District Judgte for Trail And Disposal of Commercial Disputes, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri T. Surya Satish, counsel representing Sri Raghavan K. Thalapaka,Advocate Counsel for the Respondents No.1 & 3: Sri fl.ajvinder Ahluwalla, counsel representing Sri Shireen Sethna Baria,Advocate The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER ) 2 THE HON'IILE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HOII'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO C.R.P.Nos. 1O14 and Ll84 of 2024 Sn'l'. Sr-rrva Satrsh lcau-ncd (,)Lrls(l r(.1)rcscnting Srr Ilaghavan I(. l'halapirka, le:rrrTcd counscl [or lhc pr:lll oncr. Sri Ra]vindar Ahlu\r llli1, lclrrntrL ,otrrrstlrcpr-cscnLlng Sr! Shir(:cn Scthna Baria, lcarned counsel appeirrLnB ft . ihe rcspon(lc11l Nc,s. I & 3 COMMON ORD ER: /per [ lott l)le ,Jusuce lvlottslru:riri Bhattocl arucr)

1. Thc prcs('r)t Civil Rrrvision I)e[itions arise out of trvo orders - both datcd 22.1L.2023 pirssc(l l)]. the Icarncd Commr:rcial Court:rt Hyderabad, alkrs'ing I.A.Nos.324 and l30 of 2023 i:-r C.O.P.No.89 of 2022. Thc tr, o [.As r.r'cn' filcrl br the rcspondcnt Nos. I and 3 for delction ol th cir n.un( s [l'om Lhc array of prrrties in the Commercial Original Petilion (C.O.P) hted by the petitioner herein.

2. C.O.l).No 89 ol 2O'22 rlas filed br thc petitioner herein undcr section 9 (L)(ii)(a, b, c, cl it, c) of The Arbitration an,l Conciliation Act, 1996 (199C Act), irtter oln, lor restraining the re:.;pondent No.2 from alienating or crcating t ilird-party intcrest in the schedule property pcndirrg arbitratron :rnd directing thc rest,ondent Nos.l ) ) '=:-::.-._-.-. and 3 not to exccutc any sale deed in favour ol the rcspondent No.2. Thc rcsponde nt Nos.1 and 3 hled I.A.Nos.324 ancl 13O ol 2023, rcspectivcly, under Ordcr I Rule I0(2) of Thc Code of Civil Procedurc, 1908 for cleletion of their names from the arrav of the parties i11 tl-rc C.O.l). Thc Comr4ercial Court, b1, the rmpugncd ordcrs, allou,cd the said applications. The petitioncr filcd rhc prcscnt Civil llcvision Petitions aggricved by the impugnecl ordcrs. 3 llmaar f lills 'lownship p;ir,zltc Limited (respondcnI No.3 in C.lR.P.No. 1014 ol- 2024 and respo irdent No. 1 in C. lt. P. No. I I 84 of 2024) was thc rcspondent No.2 in the C.O.P. and the applicant in LA.No. 130 <tt 2023.

4. Emaar India Limited (respopdent No.1 in C.R.P.No. lOl4 ot 2024 and rcspondent No.3 in C,R.P.No. 1184 of 2O24) u,as the rcspondcnt No.3 ir-r thc C.O.P. and applicant in 1.A.No.324 ol 2023.

5. Thc Commcrcial Court tounfl that neiLher Dmaar Llills nor Emaar India s,crt: parties to the l4emorandum of Undcrstanding (MOU) clatcd 24.11.2OO8 r,"'hich was exccuted bctwccn t-he pctitioner and thc respondent No.2 (Ambati Murali l(rishna) and hcncc, not bound by the said Arbitration Agrccment. 'lhc 4 Commercial (lor. r'L acr:ordingly allou.ed both applicatrons ordering deletio.r of Flmartr- I{ills zrnci Enraar' [.dia from the ,ri-ay ol parties in the C.O.l).No.l\9 of 202'2.

6. Wc havc hcard lcarncd counsel appearing for the petitioner and for thc respondent Nos. I and 3 (trmaar Hills and trmaar Ind ia).

7. Thc pctitioncr filcd I.A.No. 1 of 2O2S for substit.uted service on the respondcnt No.2 b_v lvar. ol papcr. publicati(,n since thc respondent No.2 could not be scrvccl b}. courie r,/ spe,:ci post. .I.he said application \vas allorrvcd b_r' this Courr on O9.0,t.2025. The proceeding shee t dated 28.Oq.2025 rccords that the pe titioner took out papcr publir ations in tu/o ltc\\.spapers on 15.0 1.2025. The respondcnt No.2 \\,as hou'cvcr no1 reprcsentcd despite substituted service. The respondent No.-2 remrrined ult rcprescnterl since then as recorded ir-r tht procccding sh(.cr d.tted 0 i.O7.2025.

8. The facts lc;rding to rlrt: filir.rg ol the C.O.p (sectio.t 9 petition) are briefly sta tcd. I , I l i 5

9. Thc Andhr:r l)radcsh Industrial Inlrastructure Corporation (APIIC) (Nou, TGIIO) issucrl Crbvcrn mcnl Ordcr No.359 datccl

04.Og .2OO2 approving thc propo{al to sct up an Integratecl mixed use Township Projcct on .53 I Acres of land in Mar.rikonda, Gachibowli and Nanakramguda of Ranga Rcddv District, in favour of Emaar Propcrtics I).JSC. EmaAr Hills Township Privatc Limited, one of threc Spccial lrurpose Vehiclcs, uras incorporated by Emaar RJSC and APIIC ftrr thc dcveloprhent of thc Integrated .lownship Projcct. AI,llC convc-yt'cl thc Ihnd in firvour of trmaar Hills Township Privatc I.i rtritcd bv a registercd Dccd of Conveyance dated 2-A.12.2OO5. Emaar N{GF (no,,r, Dmaar lndia) i\ras incorpora ted by thc timaar Group for developing the land. Emaar Hills and trmaar MGF look over the project in Deccmber, 2OO5. Subsequently, Emzrar t Iills and Emaar MGIf entercd into a Development Agrccmcnt cum Gcperal power of Attorney on

25.O7.2OO7 for dcvcloping the project. 10 The respondcnt No.2 applicd for allotment of a plot in 200g located in thc arczr carntarkcd for construction of Villas. On

20.08.2OO8, Dmaar l-lills ancl Emapr India allotted the plot to the rcspondent No.2 for a total conqide ration of I?s.55,65,0OO l- of I L 6 which 95% amounting to Rs.52,g6,750rl_ rvas to tr,: paid bcfore execution oi the Agrecmcnt of Salc anrl il-rc balancc .) /c amounting to Rs.2,78'250/ rvas to bc paid prior to the cxccurir n or the sale Deed. Since the respondent No.2 did not h.l\,e thc runds at the relevant point rtf time, the respondent No.2 ap1_.roached the pctitioncr to pay the consideration moncy on ..r proposal to sharc the built- up area with thc petit.roner upo. corstruclior.r ovcr thc plot in a 50:50 ra tro A Mcmorandum o[ Undcrstandin 3 (IVIOU) was the pctitioner and thc responclt r-)[ No.2 on 24.11.2OO8, Clausc I I of ri.hich containcd an ,\rbitration Agrecment under the relcvant provisions of the l99b Ar t executed betwee-l

11. The petitir)ner arranged the par( colrsi(jcrzrtion of Rs.52,86,750/ - cn 27.1 L200g in tcrms of rhc i\.,1()LJ dated 24.11.2OOA, in fa.rour of Emaar Indier, lrom the account o1. M/s, Avika Projccts private l,imitcd, belonging to the pcr.rt on(.r. The amount was paid through Banker's cheques in rav.tr,- of Flmaar lndia. trmaar Hills and Emaar India acknor.r,lcdged rcr.cipt of the part con sideration moncy on 0 1 . I 2.2OOg. I \ 7

12. Emaar Hills and limaar Inclia thcreafter exccuted a registered Agreement ol Sak: rlatccl 30.O3.2009 in lavour of thc respondent No.2 in rcspoct oi plot bearing No.B_3 lor a tot:rl consideration of Rs.55.65.uUU/ - [rukno,"vlc<tging the receipt ol thc amount of Rs.52,86.75O/- i.e .. q.-Z of the consideration money paid by the petilioner through tfie tu,o Bankcr,s Cheques. The respondent No.2 thcrcaftcr hancicd over the original documcnts relating to Plot No. B-3 to rhc petitroner u.hich was duly acknowledged bv thc lattcr. Sr.tbsr:qucntly, the petitioner was asked to hand over thc originzrl documents in a case filed bv thc CBI against trmaar Ilills zrnci Flrna rr India. The pctitioner issued a Legal Notice to the respondcnt N t.2 on 20.06.2022 catling upon the latter not to creare any thircl-p[irty rights over the subject plot. The petitioner hled the c.o. p. bcfqre the commerciar court undcr section 9 (l)(ii) (a, b, c, d & c) of'rhe 1996 Acr lor interim injunction on 12.09.2022. Emazrr l{ills and Dmaar India filed two l.As in the C.O.P. for deletion of thcir namcs front the array of parties. Thc I.As were allowed by thc impr.rgncrl rrr<lcrs claLcd 22.11.2023.

13. Learned counscl appcar-ii-tg ftrr the rcspondcnt Nos.1 and 3 objects to the maintainability ol rhc Civil Revision petitions. -.--:.xwtP:-- 8

14. According to counscl, the prescnt CRps arc nol rrraintainal;lc in viclv of the bar containcd in section 8 of Thc Conrrrrr.rciai Courts Act, 2015 (20 l5 Act). Counscl submits that the pcri iorrer should have filed appeals under scction 13 (lA) of the 2O1.5 ricl insread ol filing Civil Revisron Petitions undcr Article 222 of tht eonstiturion ol India.

15. We first answer the issuc of maintainabilitv

16. Section 13iiA) ol thc 2O15 Act provides for an ar;lrt:al from a judgment/order t[ a Commercial Court at the lcvcl :rl :r District Judgc exercising original civil jurisdiction or from a Commcrcial Division o[ a High Court to the Commcrcial Appcllat,. l)ivision of thal High Court. 'lhe proviso to scction 13(1A) clarifir s that slrch appcals arc limite cl to ordcrs passed by a Commcrcial )ivrsrrrn or a Commercial Court, which are specifically enumcrated rnclcr Ordcr XLIII ol The Codc of Civil procedure, 1909 and secl!o I 37 o[ The Arbitration and Cor-rciliation Act. 1996. Ordcr I Rulc i 0(2) of rhc CPC is not includeci in thc orders enumerated in Ordcr XLIII Rule I of the CPC. Thcrcforc, wc are also of the view thzrt thc prcscnt I Civil Revision l)etitions are maintainablc agzrinst thc impugned orders datcd 22.1 1.2023

17. Further, although rhe bar in scoion g ol rhc 2O15 Act prohibits the Court from cnrcrraining a Civil Rcvision Application or Petition against any in terrocu tor-r- order o[ a commercial court, it is now substantially scttled that this prohibition would not extend to CRPs filed under Ar(iclc 227 ol thc Constitution of India.

18. In M.V. Ramana Rao I/s. rV. Srrl;a-sh/, a [)ivision Bench decision of this Court dcalt rvith thc maintainal>ility ol a Revision Petition against an intcrlocutor'-r onder ol rhc c,)mmcr.cial court in respect of section 8 of the 2015 Acr. 'lhe pcrilioncr. (plaintiff) in that case had hled a Revision under Articlc 227 of [.,e constitution of India against thc ordcr ol the Cc.rntmcrcial Court allowing the application of the respondcnt Und$r Ordcr VI Rule l7 of the C.p.C lor amendment of thc written s[atemcnt_ ].hc Court drew a distinction betwee n the pou'cr of revision uncler section 1 15 of the C.P.C and the supervisory jurisdiction undcr r\rticlc 227 of Lhe constitution a,d h'eld that thc po*er of juclici^r revicw availabre t (2019) 4 AL1' 13 :! -. . ''-/./ - 10 under ArLicles 2).6 1227 ol thc Constitution cannot br r:urrailcd bv scction 8 ol TIrr: Commr:rcial Courts Act, 2015. ,l.hc Court. hor,r'evcr. Cautior Crl th;rt the Fligh Court should excrr!srj its ou,ure r under ,{rticle 22',' onl:, irr suitablc cases. M V. Ramrtrt r Rrro (sr-tprar) was follovvcd by r his Court in M / s.,VCC Limitecl, Jbrmet lL.t Ntiqar jtLnu Constructiorts Co , Ltd. Vs. Ncttional Institute of Technoioqll: , ,,r,he rcr thc Court also relied on Sholini Shgam Shefly I..s RajenrJrcL Shartkar PatrL3 to ltold that thc power of interfcrenr:c cxcrcised b_r the High CourL r rndcr Article 227 of the Constituti,:r sh.uicl be restricted to insLanccs of patent perversity, gross ol- ntarnifcst lailure of justice c r- violation of the principles of natur-al JLlsticc.

19. It should aiso be notcd that a,Civil Rcvision I)c ition, unrlcr Article 227 of th c Constitu tion is not equivalent to ;t Re vision Petition undcr se< tion I 15 of the c.p.c. The mere nonrcrcl.turc of 'Civil Rcvision Pe trrion' [or pctitions hled under Articlc 227 ri,oulci, hencc, not subjec . thcm to the statutory bar imposed lry section g of The Commercilrl Courts Act, 201S: Blue Cube Ger,,r.tttr1 Assets CmblI antl Co. K,] Vs. Vit,imed Labs Limiteda. The timits of the , )O25 Suprcm" (Onlr rcr ('l 1..1., t{S,J(, ' (20 l0) 8 SCC 329 | 20 19l2l/'.t.D 67 | 11 power of superintendence under Articlc 227 $.as als<.r noticed b_y thc Division Benches of thc Delhi High Court ir.t C.p. RantaRar.r Vs. National Highwags Aulhoity of Incl.tct.' and in lllock Diantortcj 'l'rackparts Put. Ltd. Diamond, the Delhi High Court under Vs. Bktck Diqmortd Molors pul. I-tcl.(,. In Black High Court icitcrettcd that thc pou.er ol the Article 227 of thc Constitu tion cannot bc clrcumvcnted by seclion g of The Comrncrcial CorlrLs i\ct. 2015

20. Therefore, on the pure qucstion ol m:rintainabilit1., r,r,c hzrve no doubt that thc present Civil Revision pctitions cannoI bc barrcd solely on the basis of section g of .I.hc Commcrciarl Courts Act,

2015. 21' whether the impugned ordets falr roul of thc benchmark of perversity or resulted in grave mitr;carriagc of justrcc is :r mattcr which warrants separate consideratron. Wc propose to discuss that issuc in the later part of this order.

22. We now look at the merits of the dispute brought to thc Court The question which we havc becn callcd upon to answer rs " 2024 SCC Ont-ine Del 7342 6 (2O2 1) SCC Onl-inc Del 394Cr t - 72 whcthcr thc respondent Nos.l and 3, whose names lvere deletcd lrorn thc array o partics in thc C O.P.No 89 of 2022 fi1ed by thc pctitioncr under section 9 of lhe 1996 Act, can sustain their dcfence o[ not L t:ing signatorics lo the MOU datcd 24 ' 1 1 2008 bctwccn the pctirioncr and the respondent No.2 (An-rbati Murali Krishna). '23. Tl-rc undisp,uted facts have already been stated above The facts u,hich are matcrial for assessing thc involve'nent of thc respondent No. I ,/ L)maar Hills and the rcspondent No.3/Emaar Limited) are rccuired to be Inclia (lormerlv imaar MGP Land rciteralcd belou': (i) The Emaar Croup incorporatcd Emaar Hills as a Special Project \,chicle for development of an ln:egrated Township in Manrkonda, Gachiborvli and NanakranLguda of Ranga Reddy District in fiLvour of Emaar Properitcs PJSC. (ii) AI']ltC flGItC) convcycd thc Projcct land in l:rvour of Emaar [{i Is vide Convcytrnce Dccd dated 28.12 20O5' ) 13 I (iii) Emaar Hills and Emaar MGF (now Emaar India) cntcred into a Dcvelopmcnt Agreeinent_cum_Gcncral porver of Attorney on 25.07 .2OO7 fof developing thc [)ro.jccr. (iu) A part of the Projcct land situated in lVlan ikoncla rvas earmarkcd for construction of villas bv Emaar t lrlls and trmaar MGF. (v) Plot No.B-3 was allotted bI, trmaar Hills arncl Dmaar India to the respondent Nq.2 for a total considcral tolt of Rs.55,65,O0O/-. (vi) The petitioner arranged for gsyo of rhc rotal consideration amount i.e., Rs.52,g6,750/ through Banker's Cheques on 2T .l ] .2O0g in lervou r ol l]m:rar India since the respondcnt [rlo.2 u,as not in:] posrtion to pay the consideration amount (vii) Dmaar Hills and Emaar India acknowledgcd thc receipt of 95%o of the total consideration on 01.12.200g. (viii) On 30.03.2009, Dmaar Hills gnd trmzrar India cxecured and registered an ,Agrcemcr]Lt to Sell'in lavour ol thc 'I , t - 14 rcspondcl.r I No.2 ir.r respect of the plot No.B-3 mcntionin q thc amount paid b1,' thc pctitioncr- under thc t$,o B: nker's Chcques (rx) The Agreenrent datcd 30.03.2009 records thert 9594 of thc total :onsideration amoun[ (Rs.52,86,7.50/-) was paid by th: respondcnt No.2 lor allotment of plot No.B- 3 ulde ch:cruc N<ts.O72972 and 072969, botlr dated

27.1]12003 (x) Thc chequ : numbcrs me ntioned in the Agr ccnlcnt corrcsponrl with thc chcque numbers reflectecl in the Acknowledgmcnt Rcccipt dated O1.12.2008 grvcn by the rcsporrricnl No. I / Emaar Hills to the reslrondcnt No.2. The se samc cheque numbers are also r,rflecte d in the pal,rrent madc by the petitioner to Emalr MGF (nou, Ema;rr Indi:r/thc respondent No.3) throul3h Axis Bank, Jub lcc tlills. llydcrabad.

24. The above fircls u'ould show that the rcspondent Nos. 1 and 3 have an undeniatrle intcrcst in thc subject matter of thc dispute, nameh', thc pctirroncr's claim on the respondeni No.2 lor 15 prcservlng the subjcct plot. It may be reiterated that the pcritioncr and the respondcnt No.2 had entered into an MOU clatr:cl 24.11.2008 lor payment of 9S%o of the tohl consideration bv thc pelilioncr to thc rcspondenl No.2 and ror sharing or the rotar buirt up arca in a 50:5O ratio aftcr construction on thc plot. Tl.r t. Arbitration Agreement was contained in the said MOU. 4 The petitioncr,s claim arosc betu,ecn thc pctitioncr and the res pe titioncr made paymen t ot 9S%o of on thc understanding of shari essence, the respondent Nos. 1 con sidcration amount paid by rcspondcnt No.2. out of the MOU cxccutcd ondent No.2 under vuhich tlrc !^ e total consideralion arnou n t in the propcrt.r,. I n CTt and 3 were the recipients of thc the petitioner on behalI oI tl.rc 26 The petitioner,s COp.No.g9 ot 2022 filed under scctron 9 ol 1996 Act stcmmed from the MOU dated 24.I j.2OOg, conrajning the arbitration clausc. .lhe pctitioner sought a restraint on tht, rcspondent No.2 from creating third party interests in the subject plot and a direction on the rcspondent Nos. l and 3 not to exccute any salc decd in favour of the respondent No.2. ,lhe petitioncr,s ! I / -7 76 apprchcnsion rvas thar thc respondcnt Nos. 1 and 3 ivould collect the b:rlancc .5(/o ()i ihc r:on sideration money from i-hit respondent No,2 and exccu c thc Salc Dced in favour of the latter. Thc petitioner has ac;rnittcdl,/ paid 95ol) of the total sale r.onsideration i. e. , Rs.52,86 ,7 50 I - Lo thc respondent No.3 on bl:half of the respondent No.2_

27. Thc involvcrtrcnt of thc respondent Nos. I and 3 hence begs the qucstion ils t.o u,hcthcr thc said respondents, can feign ignorancc and avorrl zrr:r-orrnr_abilit-y u,ith respect to th( underlying Arbitration Agrcerncnt llet\r,cen the pctitioner and the respondent No.2?

28. Section 9 :;f lhc 1996 Act, confers plenary p()u.ers on a Court in orderrng intcl.im m(,asures of protectton as rlay appear jusr and convenicni io the Courr {section 9(l)(ii)(e)). Thc bouquet of protcctions alvail.rl)lo to a part],, before or during arbitral procecdings or at ar1\ tinrc, altcr rhc making of thc Arbitral Award (but belore enforccrnr:nt thercof) includes prcservation o" property, interim injunction. intcrim c.ustody on sale ol_ goocis forming subject ntattcr o[ Ar.bitration Agrcement and appointrnent of a \ i I 17 .- \ '1 -**.{ l Receivcr (section 9(1)(ii)(a) and (d)). The broad_spectrum reliefs which are available to a party r.llould be evident liom the open- ended nature of the interim proteftiuc measu res which ar Court rs cmpowered to grant depending on thc urgency of the facts brought before it. Thc only coueat is that {hc application must be maclc bv a party'as deflned undcr section f 1iy1n1 of rhe 1996 Act; thar is ,a party to an Arbitration Agreement,.

29. It is significant that section 9(1) of thc 1996 Act docs noL timit the intcrim measure passed $y the Court only to a ,party, ([o an arbitration agrccment) but leaires the targc t-rcspondcn t open and unspecified. In other *o.d", t]he power to grant interim relicf is subject to a party - applicant bu{ is party-indifferent with regard lo the intended respondent. TherQ are no letters on the Court in pulling in non-parties who are strangers to an Arbitration Agreement within the zone ofprotec[irre measures.

30. A Five-Judge Bench o[ the Sqpreme Court in Cox anrl Kings Limited 7s. SAp India pnuate Limitefl7 elfectively did away with rhe party : non-party dichotomy within he dehnition of a 'party, under t 1 (2024) 4 SCC 1 k,-,-- = 18 section 2(1)(h) reari wilh section 7 of the 1996 Act to include both signatories as u':11 as non signatorics as parties t-o an arbitration agreement. In tlte facts of that case, thc Supreme Co'rrt found the conduct of the rLon-signatory party to be a necessar'" indicator of its consent to be bound by the arbiLration agreemcnt'

31. Cox oncl I{ lngs (su pra) rl':rs rcccntly lollowe d by the Supreme The S:. Patel8 Court in Ajag Mctclhusud'an Patel Vs' Jgotrindra involvement of the non-signatory party (the SRG G roup) was evaluated in thaL case to ascertain whether the non-slgnatory party intended / con sellted to be bound by the arbitratir''n agrecmcnt through their acts. The Supremc Court found thirt there were several email e: changes which showed the implied ( onsent of the SRG Group to be bouncl b1' the underlying con tra ct / arbitration agre ement. llo ,r'ever, Lhe Supreme Court held tha t the contested qucstions ol fa:ts shoulcl be examined by the Arbitral Tribunal which was the compe tent forum in that respect ()ox and Kings and, Ajay MoclL,ttsudc.n Patel converged on the neeo to gauge the conduct/ participation of the non-signatory parLy in lhe underlying l \ I (2025) 2 SCC 14: I 19 \ 'i - arbitration agrcemcnt as \{,ould be reflected from the attending

32. Vijay Aruind. ,ktiualo Vs. I_lmctng ,latin. Gand.his helrl that a strangcr to the zrrbitration agrecrnfnt doe s not have 10cus startd.i to invoke thc provisions of thc j996 Act which does not present any conflict with thc facls of the prescnt casc since the petitioncr hercin is a party to rhe MOU dated 24.1 1.200g. Shone Sa.nil Vs. Coastal Foundations (p) Ltd.Io docs not come to the aid of thc responden t as the Kerala f ligh Court opined that an application under section 9 of the 1996 Act can be directed against any person claiming under a party to the arbitrdtion agrecment.

33. In a rcccnt decision pronourfced on 13.08.2025 in Kamal Gupta Vs. M/s. L.R. fluilders put. Ltd.1r, the Supreme Court considered whether it is pcrmissible for a non-slgnatory to an agrcement to remain prcsent in the arbitration proceedings. The Suprcme Court opined thar pcrmlttlng a stranger to an arbitration to remain present and observc thc said proceeding would bc in brcach of seclion 424 ol rhc Iaq6 A(.q . Section 42A, inserted w.c.f. " AtR 2022 Cui 132 In AIR 2006 Ker 2O6 { 2o2s rNSC 97s 20

30.08.20 19, stipuiates confidcntiality of all arbitral procee dings cxcept for thc z: rvard u'herc its disclosure is nccesstrry for the purposc of imple rrentation and etllorccmet-rt Kamal (iupta (supra) isnotrelevantfortheprCscntCivilRcvisionPetitiol-rsSinccthc rhe Suprcme Court in that casc was entirelv qucstion bcfore diffcrcn t.

34. Turning ortr gaze to that the rcsPondent Nos. L the prescnt facts, thcre is nc dispute and 3 are vitallY-con nr:cted to the - the dispute h:rving takcn on thc responsibility of subject matter o developing the I)roject. Thc respondcnt Nos' I and 3 have also accepted 95o/o of the consideration money from thc pelitioner' The respondent Nos 1 and 3 havc, holvcvcr, succeedcd in divorcing themsclves from the vcn' transactiorr which iacilitatc 1 pavrnent of 95ok ol thc consiCeration amoullt to thc said rcspondents.

35. Ilencc, the act of walling thcmse lvcs in from th( r-each of the arbitration agrecment is at stiltuLory odcls with sr)clion 9 of thc 1996 Act as well as ihc expansive dcfinition given to iln arbitration agrecment in Coi: and KIngs. In esscnce' the respondt'nt Nos l and 3 aFe indivistbl , connectecl to thc arbitration agre( ment having I l7 pa-rtaken of the bcnefit flowing thcrefrom in tcrms of receiving 95% of the consideration for rhc allotrqd plot in thc project.

36. Thercforc, thc facts cannot bc simplified only to the claim bcing restricted to the petitioner and thc rcspondcnt No.2, as signatorics to thc .irbitration agrecmcnt. Aftcr:rll, the dispute is not only with rcgard to recovcry of moncy by the petitioncr from the respondent No.2 but also for qrotecting the pctitioner,s right to the property u,hich was within the undisputcd domain of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 between

37. Thus, the facts satisfy the requirements of Cox and Kings (supra) b1'a milc zrnd more in terms of the conduct o[ thc respondent Nos.1 and 3 who arc ln tima tely-connccted to the Thc rcquire ment of a written arbitration agreement dispute. the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 1 arld 3, as understood undcr scction 7 of the 1996 Act, would not dilute the petitioner's rights to claim relicfs against thc respondent Nos. 1 and 3 in an application under scctior-r 9 oi thc said Act. Giving a rigid interpretaLion to a writtcn arbitration a€arcement undcr section 7 of - 22 thc 1996 Act wou td irrevocably diminish the efficacv ol scction 9 of thc Act

38. Order I Rul: l0(2) of th(r (].p.C. pcrmits the Corrrr ro srrike out or adC parties at an)' stagc of the suit eithcr on or r,,.ithour such application I, cing madc by :l part)r as rvould appc.rr ne cessarv to thc Courl. Thc Court cquall5, has the power to -joi r a person, u,hether as plain tiff or defendant, where the Court decms il, neccssary lor suclt joinder of parties on the justificat on of thcir presence cnabling to completely adjudicatc upon and s,rttlc irll Lhe qu( lil i()ns involvcd irr thc suit.

39. In lhc preserrt case, th(] rcspondent Nos. I and 3 applicd for striking out of thctr namcs undcr Ordet. I Rule 10(2) ol thc C.p C. on thc sole grourd of thcir bcing strangers to the arbitration agreement/MOU dated 24.ll.2OOB. We have stated ollr rcasons in thc loregoing pa;.agraphs lbr holding such cond L cl ro be inconsistent with the intcnt and purpose of norr-siglnatory accountability whi< h is intcnclcd to be preserved in a lrroccedir-rg undcr scction 9 of the i996 Act. 3

40. The law has pushed t4 e boundaries to pull in non srgnatories to the arbitration agr cment u'here thc conduct of such pa-rties rcflects their in tcn tion lto bc bound by the arbitration agreement. The test is ol r he non-slgnaton. having a live and q proxrmate conne ction to thc at-bit faLron agrcemcnt so much so that the requiremcnl o[ signing on Lhc dottcd linc of a wrtttcn arbitration agreement bccomcs ifrelcvant. ln essence, the non signatory cannot un_burden itsel{ irom the obligations ari of the arbitration agrccment on tde pretex[ o[ not bcing a it if therc is cvidcncc ol an intimfltc conn,-ctron betu,ccn t party and the arbi[ration agreem(rrt_ Thc cnlarged canva the law norv emphasiscs canrrot s which bc shlunk to ,pzrrties, in the srng out pa,rty to he non outdated sen sc.

41. We are hence constrained to disa grcc u,ith the reason given by the Commcrcial Court lor allo ing delettor-r of the rcspondent w Nos. 1 ald 3 from the array ol. pa es rn thc C.O.lr.No.g9 ol 2022. The extcnt oI involvement of thc s"!d .e"pondents lr,ould show that they are not only proper but necessary partics to the dispute. ln lact, thc prcsenct, ol th,: rcspond<1nt Nos. I and 3 would, on all counts, be esscntial frrr thc Court to deciclc on the merits of thc .qi (' t - 24 section 9 application for preservation of thc subjecr p ot; not only againsi thc sig ta tory/ re sponden t No.2 bui also the non_ srgnatoric s / respondent Nos. 1 and 3 to the arbitration aqrcement

42. The ease wilh which the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 ,,vcre struck out lrorn the array of parties warrants interference sincc the pctitioncr q'ould bc consigned to a pointless con:est il- thc respondcnt No.2 r:mains the solitary respondent. Thr possibilitl- ol tl-rc rcspondent i{os. I and 3 arienating the land in fav,rur of thirrr parties or to the respondent No.2 cannot be ruled out, u.hereby the petilioncr's claim in the subject property would t;e entirely 1l'u stra.Lccl.

13. Sccrion 9(1) :f the 1996 Act and Order I Rute 1r.)(2) of the CPC are cnabling provisions for the Court to reach the I:gical and correct outcome of the clispute and to preserve the subject marter of the drspute till the outcome is reached. The Court cannot pcrmit important playcrs to sneak across the boundar..,_line and disappear from the field.lbclore conclusion of thc mai ch. The Court, as thc umpit.e, must ensure that all the players remain in the con I,est till dccla ration of the winner. &t

44. We accordingly have no hesitation to hold that the Commercial Court errcd in pabsing the impugnecl orders by deleting the respondcnt Nos. I anpl 3 from the array of parties in COP.No.89 of 2022. The gncd orders daLed 22.11.2023 Imnrl passed in I.A. No. 130 of 2023 and I A.No.324 ol 2023 in COp.No.89 of 2O22 are hence set aside. ('ontrary to lhe rccenl decisio The error in thc reason assigned is ns prrir nounccd by thc Suprcme Court on the inclusive naturc of arbitrati parties. I{ence, we are also of d n agrcemcnts in rcspect of non- thc vieq. that the CRps arc matnLainable against thc imptr gncd ordcrs.

45. CRP.Nos. 1O14 and 1 1g4 ol 2024 are accordingll, allou.ed. Pending miscellaleous appticationp, if any, shall stand closed. Interim orders, if any, shall stand v{catecl. Thcrc shall bc no order as to costs SD/- A.SREENIVA ASSISTANT R SA REDDY EGISTRAR //TRUE COqY// one Fair Copy to_the HON,BIE JUST|CE MOUSHUMT (For Her Lorasrrip-,J ilil F;1":# SECTION OFFICER BHATTACHARYA One Fair Copy to the HOfr ir". x L il.l3.t .o ji?,'jE SUDHAN RAO i;I111oo To, 1 The Principal Special Court in The C ?rspo^s€l of Commerciat Oisputes, Citi One CC to Sri Raghavan X fnatapatal a re of District Judge for Trail and ivil Court, Hydera bad vocate [OpUC] ,:r:l:&::.:g,i:}.:tii*:J i,:.:..

3. One CC to Sri S-rireen Sethna Baria, Advocate [OPUC] 4. 1'l LR Copies 5. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs. New Delri.

6. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, Higl' Court Buildings at Hyderabad. \ Kam/PSL

7. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:19t081202s ,-a=1 ,1 1<; ,)F ' {E S l;l r ,: ^. 2 5 llJB 2025 .',tti ,/. r:7 it.j i.r\-ti: it). \."/ \ I COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.1014 and 1184 of 2024 ALLOWING TI.IE CIVIL REVISION PEI'ITIONS $ 2D