- (1.) No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in spite of the order passed on 11.1.2012 which is peremptory in nature so far the filing of affidavit is concerned.
(2.) Instead of hearing the appeal in a formal way we take the hearing of the appeal dispensing with all the formalities as the learned Counsel for the respondent is available, who waives the service of Notice-of-Appeal.
(3.) This appeal is taken out against ad interim order passed by the learned Trial Judge while entertaining application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1996). The application is still pending before the learned Trial Judge for final hearing on completion of filing affidavit. Pending disposal of the same ad interim order of injunction had been passed not only against the appellant company but also against appellant nos. 2 and 3 who are not parties to this arbitration agreement admittedly. Indeed at the first place we fail to understand how non party to the arbitration agreement could make an application under Section 9 of the Act 1996. Even going by the statements and averments made in the petition under Section 9 it is specifically stated that against these appellant nos. 2 and 3 no relief is claimed. This will be apparent from paragraph 2 of the Section 9 application. We are of the view on the face of infirmity of the sort as stated above the learned Trial Judge should not have passed order of injunction affecting non parties to the arbitration agreement and more so no relief has been claimed against those persons. It is not a case where Court for the interest of justice will pass order of its own. When the parties are not really interested to get any interim protection against those persons the Court suo motu ought not to have passed orders as if such is one sort of impermissible activism of the Court. It would be open for the appellant to take steps for deletion of the names of those persons who are not parties to the arbitration agreement.;