AJAY MAKHIJA Vs. DOLLARMINE EXPORTS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE counsel for the Caveator has appeared. The caveat stands discharged.

(2.) INTERIM measures are sought before the commencement of the arbitration proceedings arising out of a partnership deed dated 2nd October, 2005 between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. The petitioner has also impleaded as respondent No. 2 M/s. Picadilly Properties Pvt. Ltd. which is stated to be a company controlled by the same persons who are controlling the respondent No. 1 company. The reason for impleading the respondent No. 2 appears to be the case of the petitioner, of the corporate veil of the respondents No. 1 and 2 being liable to be pierced.

(3.) I have brought to the notice of the counsel for the petitioner the recent judgment of a Single Judge of this court in Kanta Vashist vs. Ashwini Khurana wherein it has been held that in a section 9 petition no reliefs can be given against the companies controlled by the family members who are parties to the arbitration when which companies are not parties to the arbitration. Even though I have subsequently in Value advisory Services Vs. M/s. ZTE Corporation held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the issuance of interim orders qua third parties and the same depends on the facts of each case but I do not find the facts of the present case to be such in which it can be said that orders under section 9 can be passed against the respondent No. 2.