M. R. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. Kedar Biniwale, learned advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 and Mr. P. R. Thakkar, learned Advocate waives the service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent No. 10. ( 2 ) AT the request of the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, present petition is taken up for final hearing today. ( 3 ) HEARD Mr. S. N. Soparkar, learned senior Advocate appearing with Mr. R. S. Sanjanwala, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Mihir thakore, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. Kedar Biniwale, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 8 and 9 and Mr. P. R. Thakkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 10. ( 4 ) BY way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners - original applicants have prayed for appropriate writ, order and/or direction to quash and set aside the impugned order dtd. 13/12/2008 passed by the learned principal District Judge, Vadodara below application Ex. 35 in Civil Misc. (Arbitration) Application No. 53 of 2007 by which the learned Judge has dismissed the said application submitted by the petitioners- original applicants to join the respondent nos. 9 and 10 in the said application and to grant injunction against them in application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and conciliation Act ("arbitration Act" for short ). ( 5 ) FACTS leading to the present Special civil Application, in nutshell, are as under:- ( 6 ) ARBITRATION proceedings were initiated between the petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to 8 herein - original opponent Nos. l to 8 and disputes between the two groups i. e. C. K. Shah Group and v. K. Shah Group were referred to arbitration by sole arbitrator Smt. Shamima taly, Solicitor, High Court of Mumbai. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that the disputes which were referred to the arbitration also concerned "bhadralok Land project". The said Bhadralok Land Project comprises of land bearing previously assigned Final Plot No. 199, now Final Plot no. 259 of Town Planning Scheme No. 22, revenue Survey No. 139/2 of Village Akota, in the Sim of Akota, Tal. Vadodara, District vadodara. Initially an interim Award dtd. The said Bhadralok Land Project comprises of land bearing previously assigned Final Plot No. 199, now Final Plot no. 259 of Town Planning Scheme No. 22, revenue Survey No. 139/2 of Village Akota, in the Sim of Akota, Tal. Vadodara, District vadodara. Initially an interim Award dtd. 6/ 11/2000 was declared by the learned sole arbitrator. That thereafter final order came to be passed on 29/11/2001 by the learned sole arbitrator. That being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the Award declared by the learned sole arbitrator dtd. 29/11/2001, the petitioners herein - original applicants have filed application under Sec. 34 of the arbitration Act being Arbitration misc. Application No. 47 of 2002 before the district Court, Vadodara which is still pending for consideration. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that by virtue of sec. 36 of the Arbitration Act, enforcement of the award during the pendency of Sec. 34 application is not permissible. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that as the disputes between the parties are with regard to Bhadralok Land Project, the learned arbitrator has been pleased to uphold the development agreement in favour of the company and also pleased to accept the contention of the V. K. Shah Group. That the power of attorney executed by the petitioners Nos. 2,3,4,6 and 7 as owners of the plot Nos. F to J is irrecoverable, the said award of the learned arbitrator has been disputed by the petitioners and the challenge to the Award is pending: consideration. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that they learnt that by Feed of conveyance dtd. 22/2/2007 showing the applicant Nos. 2,4,6 and 7 as vendors; yuvraj Industries Limited as the confirming party and Aasman Trading Private Limited, respondent No. 10 herein as the purchaser. Plot Nos. G,h,i and J have been conveyed to the said purchaser for a total consideration of Rs. 2. 42 Crores and the said sale deed has been executed by V. K. Shah relying upon the power of attorney which was revoked in the year 2000. ( 7 ) IT appears that the amounts were borrowed from the Bank of India against the mortgage of lands in question and the amounts were not paid by the respondent no. 2. 42 Crores and the said sale deed has been executed by V. K. Shah relying upon the power of attorney which was revoked in the year 2000. ( 7 ) IT appears that the amounts were borrowed from the Bank of India against the mortgage of lands in question and the amounts were not paid by the respondent no. 1 Company and therefore, proceedings were initiated by the Bank of India against the respondent No. l Company as well as the members of C. K. Shah Group and V. K. Shah Group. While those proceedings were pending, the petitioners realised that the Bank of India is settling the matter with the members of V. K. Shah Group whereunder the debt along with the security is being assigned in favour of the respondent No. 9 herein. The petitioners gave an offer of Rs. 8. 50 Crores for One time settlement of the dues which was higher than the offer of the Company. It is the case on behalf of the petitioners that in fact, Bank of India and V. K. Shah Group, however, fraudulently executed consent terms, and presented before the Debt recovery Tribunal at Mumbai where recovery proceedings initiated by the Bank of India were pending. Under the said consent terms, against payment of Rs. 8. 25 crores to be received from the defendant no. 19 in the said proceedings, defendant no. 1 to 4 and 14 to 17 i. e. members of v. K. Shah Group have been relieved and all the securities including the rights in the bhadralok Project have been assigned in favour of the defendant No. 19 - present respondent No. 9. The Bank of India also executed deed of conveyance dtd. 19/12/2007 in favour of M/s. Yashvee construction Pvt. Ltd. assigning the debt and securities which were held by the bank. It is also the case on behalf of the petitioners that even while challenge to the arbitral award is pending, the respondents have collusively acted on the basis of and/ or in pursuance of the said arbitral award and disturbed the status-quo which was prevailing during the arbitral proceedings and immediately after the Award of the learned Arbitrator and therefore, the petitioners have filed Misc. Civil application No. 53 of 2007 before the 5 District Court at Vadodara under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act inter-alia seeking interim measures of protection. Civil application No. 53 of 2007 before the 5 District Court at Vadodara under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act inter-alia seeking interim measures of protection. That some proceedings initiated by the petitioners are also pending before the Debt Recovery tribunal. Mumbai. The petitioners have also filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1033 of 2007 before the Civil Court at Vadodara challenging the deed of conveyance dtd. 22/ 2/2007. after the application under Sec. 9 was submitted by the petitioners for seeking interim measures of protection, the respondent filed application raising certain preliminary objections and the said application came to be rejected. The order rejecting the said application was challenged before this Court by way of special Civil Application No. 22845 of 2007 and Special Civil Application No. No. 22465 of 2006 and this Court by an order dtd. 5/9/2007 dismissed both the aforesaid petitions and directed the District court, Vadodara to decide and dispose of the application filed by the petitioners as expeditiously as possible, preferably on or before 29/1/2007. That thereafter, the petitioners submitted application Ex. 35 to join the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 as party respondents in application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act inter-alia seeking order for joining M/s. Yashvee Construction pvt. Ltd and M/s. Aasman Trading Limited. The said application was opposed by the respondent No. 1 to 7 by reply dtd. 14/12/2007. The proposed respondent Nos. 4 to 10 also submitted their replies dtd. 14/12/2007. That thereafter by the impugned order, the learned Principal District Judge has dismissed the said application holding that as the proposed respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are third parties i. e. not party to the arbitration agreement/proceedings and therefore, no injunction can be sought against them and therefore, they are not required to be joined as party respondents in an application under Sec. 9 of the arbitration Act. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned order dtd. 31/12/2008 passed by the learned Principal district Judge, Vadodara below application ex. 35 in Misc. Civil Application (Arbitration) No. 53 of 2007, the petitioners- original applicants have preferred present special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) MR. Soparkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners - original applicants has submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in holding that the respondent Nos. Civil Application (Arbitration) No. 53 of 2007, the petitioners- original applicants have preferred present special Civil Application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) MR. Soparkar, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners - original applicants has submitted that the learned trial Court has materially erred in holding that the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 (being third party to the arbitration agreement) cannot be joined in an application/proceedings under sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act. It is further submitted that if such an interpretation and the order is upheld, in that case, considering the fact that arbitral Tribunal has no power to grant any injunction, in case any of the party to the Tribunal transfer the property and/or takes any step detrimental to the arbitration proceedings, in that case the aggrieved party will be remedyless. ( 9 ) MR. Soparkar has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dtd. 26/7/2002 rendered in First Appeal No. 5252 of 2001 in case of Nirma Limited v. Lentjes Energy (India) Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that the Division Bench in the aforesaid decision has specifically held that the Court will have power to issue interim relief in exercise of the power under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act, even against the third party though not party to the arbitration proceedings. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned District Court in so far as holding that the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 cannot be joined as party to the proceedings under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act deserves to be quashed and set aside. ( 10 ) MR. Mihir Thakore, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 herein - proposed respondents - third party, is not in a position to show any contrary judgement to the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Nirma Limited (supra ). He is also not disputing the above proposition that no interim relief can be granted under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act against the third party to the arbitral proceedings/agreement. However, he has submitted that in view of above, even if the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 herein are joined as party respondents in an application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration act, in that case, the question with respect to whether respondent NOs. However, he has submitted that in view of above, even if the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 herein are joined as party respondents in an application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration act, in that case, the question with respect to whether respondent NOs. 9 and 10 are necessary party and/or whether any interim relief can be granted against them, all questions be kept open. ( 11 ) THUS, it appears that there is broad consensus between the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties in any other proceedings before any other Tribunal and/or Court, if the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are ordered to be joined as respondent nos. 9 and 10 and all other questions with respect to whether the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are necessary party and/or whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for in the application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act, all questions be kept open. ( 12 ) NOW, so far as the controversy as to whether in an application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act any interim relief against the third party, who is not a party to the Arbitration proceedings and/or arbitration agreement can be granted or not, is now. not res-integra. Identical question came to be considered by the division Bench of this Court in the case of nirma Limited (Supra ). In the aforesaid decision, the Division Bench has also considered the distinction between the powers to be exercised under Sec. 9 of the arbitration Act and under Sec. 17 of the arbitration Act. It was sought to be contended before the Division Bench that as the powers are vested with the arbitral tribunal under Sec. 17 of the Arbitration act to issue interim direction, the learned trial Court ought not to have exercised powers under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act. In paragraph Nos. 9. 2 and 10, the Division bench has held as under:-"9. 2 The basic limitation on the power of the Arbitral Tribunal lies in the arbitration agreement which binds only the parties to the agreement. Arbitration clause cannot bind anyone who is not a party to it. Thus, the Arbitral Tribunal will have no power to issue interim orders which can bind third parties over whom it has no consensual jurisdiction. 2 The basic limitation on the power of the Arbitral Tribunal lies in the arbitration agreement which binds only the parties to the agreement. Arbitration clause cannot bind anyone who is not a party to it. Thus, the Arbitral Tribunal will have no power to issue interim orders which can bind third parties over whom it has no consensual jurisdiction. Moreover, Arbitral tribunals have no coercive power to enforce their orders. An injunction ordered by Arbitral Tribunal would not be fortified with the threat of contempt of Court, but would only have contractual effect between the parties. It is therefore evident that access to the Court under Section 9 of the said Act for certain kinds of interim relief in arbitration cases, would not only be expedient but necessary as a provisional remedy to ensure that a just outcome of the arbitral proceedings does not get defeated and the Arbitral Tribunal can effectively resolve the disputes. The range of interim measures that can be issued under Section 9 of the said Act is considerably wider than that under Section 17. The provisions of sections 9 and 17 modelled on the uncitral Model Law on International commercial Arbitration (1985) give an option of free access to both the Court and the arbitral Tribunal for interim relief and give the parties a choice between Arbitral tribunal or Court for interim reliefs. Furthermore, a party to an arbitration agreement could approach the Court for interim protection measures under Section 9 before or during the arbitration proceedings, which indicates that the efficacy of Court's power to grant interim relief remains the same even during the arbitration proceedings. It would therefore not be proper to relegate a party who approaches the Court for interim relief under Section 9, to the Arbitral Tribunal for an interim measure of protection under section 17. The view that the Court should not exercise its discretionary powers under section 9 when a party to the arbitration agreement can move the Arbitral Tribunal under Section 17 cannot, therefore, be accepted. "10. The contention on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the Court cannot consider the agreement between the appellant and the respondent No. 2, because, that would amount to enforcing liability of the respondent No. 2 which can be done only by the ICC - London, is misconceived. "10. The contention on behalf of the respondent No. 2 that the Court cannot consider the agreement between the appellant and the respondent No. 2, because, that would amount to enforcing liability of the respondent No. 2 which can be done only by the ICC - London, is misconceived. When the Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction only to decide disputes arising under one set of contracts, it does not preclude the arbitral Tribunal from taking another related contract into consideration. There is a distinction between giving effect to another contract by deciding issues under it and taking that contract into consideration for the purposes of interpretation and application of the agreements falling within the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal. Therefore, there would be no lack of jurisdiction to consider the nature of the agreement of the appellant with the respondent No. 2 in context of three agreements with the respondent No. 1 for a comprehensive understanding of the nature of the transaction. Such consideration may become necessary to ascertain the intention of the parties as to whether they conceived of various agreements as forming together one single economic transaction. The Court can, therefore, always take into consideration the related contracts to ascertain the nature of the transaction while deciding the question of interim measures under Section 9, because, a truncated view of the transaction cannot guide the Court as to what interim measures are required. That would not amount to enforcing any liability under any contract for which the Arbitral tribunal may have no jurisdiction. " ( 13 ) WHILE considering the dispute as to whether any interim relief under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act can be granted against the third party, who is not party to the arbitration agreement/arbitration proceedings, the Division Bench has held as under:- "13. However, the fact remains that the arbitration clause contained in Article 15 of the agreement with the respondent No. 2 stipulated that if at any time any question/ dispute or difference whatsoever shall arise between the respondent No. 2 and the appellant out of or in connection with this agreement, the same shall be finally settled by arbitration in accordance with the Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration of the international Chamber of Commerce. The place of arbitration shall be London and arbitration proceedings shall be carried out in England. The place of arbitration shall be London and arbitration proceedings shall be carried out in England. On the strength of this clause, the respondent No. 2 has taken up a stand that the Domestic Arbitral Tribunal will have no jurisdiction over the respondent no. 2 and therefore, the interim relief cannot be issued either by the Arbitral Tribunal or by the Court under Sections 9 and 17 of the act, even if the respondent No. 2 was to be treated as a guarantor for the obligations of the respondent No. 1 under the three agreements including the obligation to conduct the performance tests. 13. 1 It was urged in the above background, on behalf of the appellant that, having regard to the nature of the transaction, the Court will have power to issue interim relief even against the respondent No. 2 though not a party to the arbitration proceeding, as on today, and therefore, the respondent No. 2 can be compelled to do performance test on the three boilers in order to demonstrate "that the boiler is capable of operating in accordance with the technical specifications", as was stipulated by the respondent No. 2 under Article 8. 2. 1 of the contract. It was argued that the respondent no. 1 was only a "shell" Company founded by the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of the contract and the respondent No. 1 had no means to satisfy the claim of the appellant and therefore, the respondent No. 2 should also be asked 10 furnish a bank guarantee in the sum claimed by the appellant who was entitled to get back the entire amount paid under the contracts from the respondents nos. 1 and 2, as per the Statement of claim. 13. 2 The respondent No. 2 had moved the Tribunal for holding that it had no jurisdiction over the respondent No. 2 in view of the arbitration clause in Article 15 of the Agreement, which stipulated that the seat of arbitration will be at London. This order was confirmed by the Court in Appeal and a Revision Application is pending with the High Court, as noted above. Therefore, as on today, the respondent No. 2 is held to be not amenable to the jurisdiction of the arbitral Tribunal since it was not a signatory to the arbitral clause contained in any of the three agreements with the respondent No. 1. Therefore, as on today, the respondent No. 2 is held to be not amenable to the jurisdiction of the arbitral Tribunal since it was not a signatory to the arbitral clause contained in any of the three agreements with the respondent No. 1. However, that aspect is quite distinct from the power of the Court to grant interim measures under Section 9 of the Act, which may extend even against the third party. These powers are same as those exercisale for the purpose of and in relation to any proceeding before it. A surety will not be a stranger to contract of guarantee since it is a triparte contract which makes the liability of a surety co-extensive with that of the principal debtor, though indeed a separate liability. In contrast to Section 17 under which the interim measures that can be issued by the arbitral Tribunal only against the parties to the arbitration agreement, the Court can in a given case issue interim measures against the parties not involved in the arbitration and such measures would be enforceable through the local judicial system, (See paragraph 4. 038 at page 120 of "international Commercial Arbitration in uncitral Model Law Jurisdiction" by dr. Peter Binder, First Edition (2000)published by Sweet and Maxwell ). The applications under Section 9 to Court will be appropriate where the order is sought against the third party over whom the tribunal had no jurisdiction or where any order by the Tribunal is likely to be ineffective. (See para 5. 096 at page 205 of russel on Arbitration, 21st Edition ). " ( 14 ) THEREFORE, considering the binding decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the Case of Nirma Limited (Supra), it is to be held that the interim relief under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration can be granted against a third party/stranger to the Arbitration proceedings and arbitration agreement. ( 15 ) EVEN otherwise considering the scheme of the Arbitration Act right from sec. 9 to Sec. 17 of the Arbitration Act, before or during arbitral proceedings at any time after making arbitral award, but before it is enforced in accordance with Sec. 36, court may pass an appropriate order for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the matters mentioned in Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act. Sec. 9 of the i Arbitration Act reads as under:- "sec. Sec. 9 of the i Arbitration Act reads as under:- "sec. 9:-Interim measures, etc. by court.- A party may, before or during arbitral proceedings or at any time after the making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with Sec. 36, apply to a Court.- (i) for the appointment of a guardian of a minor or a person of unsound mind for the purpose of arbitral proceedings; or (ii) for an interim measure of protection in respect of any of the following matters , namely;- (a) the preservation, interim custody or sale of any goods which are the subject matter of the arbitration agreement; (b) securing the amount in dispute in arbitration; (c) the detention, preservation or inspection of any property or thing which is the subject matter of the dispute in arbitration, or as to which any question may arise therein and authorising for any of the aforesaid purposes any person to enter upon any land or building in the possession of any party, or authorising any samples to be taken or any observation to be made, or experiment to be tried, which may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of obtaining full information or evidence; (d) interim injunction or the appointment of a receiver; (e) such other interim measure of protection as may appear to be Court to be just and convenient, and the Court shall have the same power for making orders as it has for the purpose of. and in relation to, any proceedings before it. " ( 16 ) IT is true that Sec. 17 of the arbitration Act enables the Arbitral tribunal to order a party to take any interim measure of protection as the Atribtral tribunal may consider necessary in respect of the subject matter of the dispute. However, the Sec. 17 deals with the powers of the Arbitral Tribunal and the Arbitral tribunal can exercise the powers under Sec. 17 only after the dispute is referred to arbitral Tribunal. However, so far as Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act is concerned, the scope is very wide and the order for interim measure can be ordered by the Court before or during the arbitral proceedings or at any time alter making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with sec. However, so far as Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act is concerned, the scope is very wide and the order for interim measure can be ordered by the Court before or during the arbitral proceedings or at any time alter making of the arbitral award but before it is enforced in accordance with sec. 36 of the Arbitration Act and even an interim order can also be passed under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act even against a third party to the arbitration agreement/ proceedings with respect to subject matter of the arbitration agreement/dispute. Therefore, the scope and exercise of the power under Sec. 17 is restricted to Arbitral tribunal and that can only be during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings before it. However, scope of Sec. 9 of the arbitration Act is even prior to commencement of proceedings before the arbitral Tribunal and even after the Award is declared by the Arbitral Tribunal, but before it is enforced in accordance with sec. 36 of the Arbitration Act. Thus, considering the scope of Sec. 9 of the arbitration Act and other relevant provisions of the Arbitration Act, it appears that interim order can be passed by the court under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act so as to see that the arbitration proceedings do not become infructuous. ( 17 ) CONSIDERING above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court rejecting the application submitted by the petitioners- original applicants permitting them to join the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 as party to the proceedings under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration act by holding that the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 herein being third party to the arbitration proceedings/agreement cannot be permitted to be joined in an application under Sec. 9, deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. And it is held that the interim relief can be granted under Sec. 9 of the arbitration Act with respect to disputed property even against the third party who is not party to the arbitration proceedings/ agreement. ( 18 ) THERE is a broad consensus between the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties to the effect that if the respondent Nos. ( 18 ) THERE is a broad consensus between the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties to the effect that if the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are to be joined as party respondents to the application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration act, in that case, they may be joined as party to the proceedings under Sec. 9 of the arbitration Act keeping all the questions open as to whether the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are necessary and proper party to the application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration act and whether the petitioners are entitled to the reliefs under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration act against the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties in any other proceedings before any other Tribunal and/or Court. ( 19 ) IN view of the above findings and broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties recorded hereinabove, the impugned order dtd. 13/12/2008 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, vadodara below application Ex. 35 in Civil misc. (Arbitration) Application No. 53 of 2007 is hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that the third party to the arbitration agreement/dispute can be made a party to the application under Sec. 9 of the arbitration Act and that interim relief under sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act can be granted by the Court even against the third party to the Arbitration agreement/dispute and respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are hereby ordered to be joined as party respondent Nos. 9 and 10 in the application under Sec. 9 of the arbitration Act. However, the same shall be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties to the application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration act and/or any other proceedings before any other Forum/tribunal and/or Court and the question as to whether the respondent nos. 9 and 10 are necessary and proper party and/or whether the petitioners are entitled to any relief under Sec. 9 of the arbitration Act against the respondent nos. 9 and 10, all questions are kept open to be decided by the learned District Judge while deciding the application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act. It goes without saying that the learned District Judge shall decide and dispose of the application Ex. 9 and 10, all questions are kept open to be decided by the learned District Judge while deciding the application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act. It goes without saying that the learned District Judge shall decide and dispose of the application Ex. 9 of the Arbitration Act and the aforesaid questions, without in any way being influenced by his earlier order. This order to be construed only to bring the respondent nos. 9 and 10 on record of the aforesaid proceedings. ( 20 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case and when it is reported that application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration is pending before the learned trial Court since long and even application under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act challenging the award declared by the arbitral Tribunal is pending since last 7 years, the learned district Judge before whom the application under Sec. 34 of the Arbitration Act is pending and before whom the application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act will be placed, are directed to decide and dispose of the aforesaid two proceedings i. e. proceedings under Sec. 34 and under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act at the earliest but not later than 31/3/2010. All concerned are. directed to cooperate the learned Judge in early disposal of the aforesaid two applications/proceedings within the stipulated time as stated above. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to send writ of this order to the principal District Judge, Vadodara immediately. (Rule is made absolute)