Section 9 jurisdiction is limited to preserving the arbitration agreement's subject matter and cannot settle unrelated third-party claims.

The Petitioner Society entered into a Development Agreement (DA) in 2013 with Respondent No. 1 (Developer) for redevelopment

The Developer defaulted on statutory dues, transit rent, and construction milestones, leading the Society to file a Section 9 petition under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, in 2017

On December 14, 2017, the Court passed a wide-reaching injunction attaching the Developer’s personal assets and restraining them from creating third-party rights in any of their projects

Over time, 31 Interim Applications (IAs) were filed, mostly by third-party decree-holders and allottees from unrelated projects seeking a share of the funds (~Rs. 11 crores) deposited in Court

In September 2024, an Arbitral Tribunal was finally constituted, and Section 17 proceedings commenced

The court primarily applied Section 9 and Section 17 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Section 2(1)(h) defines a "party" strictly as a party to an arbitration agreement

Under Section 9(3), once a tribunal is constituted, the Court shall not entertain interim measures unless Section 17 is found to be inefficacious

The court further applied the "veritable party" doctrine established in Cox and Kings Ltd. v. SAP India (P) Ltd. and ASF Buildtech Pvt. Ltd. v. Shapoorji Pallonji, which requires a non-signatory to demonstrate proximity, consent, or a de facto connection to the specific dispute to be impleaded

The Court reasoned that Section 9 is a protective jurisdiction in aid of arbitration, not a standalone equity jurisdiction for the world at large

Since the Arbitral Tribunal was now functional and had already passed a Section 17 order, the "rule of law" required the Section 9 Court to cease its involvement, as there was no evidence that Section 17 was inefficacious

Regarding the third-party intervenors, the Court held they lacked privity to the DA and were not "veritable parties"; their claims originated from entirely distinct projects and contracts

The Court noted that allowing them to "chase assets" in Section 9 proceedings regarding a bilateral contract would be coram non judice (without jurisdiction)

all third-party interventions are rejected as they lack privity to the arbitration agreement

the Arbitral Tribunal shall determine within three months what portion of the deposited funds is necessary to secure the Society's claim; any surplus shall be released to the Developer

the Tribunal is empowered to vary or vacate the December 2017 injunction

the Court Commissioner is disbanded and replaced by an official Registry officer for a joint handover

Third-party decree-holders were granted liberty to approach appropriate execution forums, with the time spent here excluded for limitation purposes