41. We are hence constrained to disagree with the reason given by the Commercial Court for allowing deletion of the respondent Nos.1 and 3 from the array of parties in the C.O.P.No. 89 of 2022. The extent of involvement of the said respondents would show that they are not only proper but necessary parties to the dispute. In fact, the presence of the respondent Nos. 1 and 3 would, on all counts, be essential for the Court to decide on the merits of the section 9 application for preservation of the subject plot; not only against the signatory/respondent No.2 but also the non-signatories / respondent Nos.1 and 3 to the arbitration agreement.”
— Team AMLEGALS
Please reach out to us at rohit.lalwani@amlegals.com in case of any query.