JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Ms. Monica P.Pole, learned counsel represents Mr. P.Subash, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Heard on the question of admission. 3. In this appeal preferred under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, the appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 22.09.2023, by which the petition filed by the appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the A&C Act’), has been dismissed. 4. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that the appellant and respondents have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on 15.01.2013 wherein respondent No.1 viz., developer was granted development rights in respect of the schedule properties. Respondent No.2 is a subsidiary company to respondent No.1, which is providing financial assistance. The dispute had arisen between the parties. Respondent No.2 issued a public notice on 14.06.2023 to alienate the schedule property in contravention of the terms and conditions of MOA dated 15.01.2013. The appellant filed a petition under Section 9 of the A&C Act, seeking stay against respondent No.2- company restraining it from alienating the schedule property. 5. The Ministry of Corporate Affairs (for short ‘the MCA’) had filed a petition under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act, 2013, before the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai (for short ‘the NCLT’). The NCLT vide order dated 01.10.2018 suspended the existing Board of Directors and appointed new Directors. Thereafter, the MCA filed an application under Sections 241 and 242 of the Companies Act before the NCLT seeking stay of coercive steps. However, the aforesaid application was rejected by an order dated 12.10.2018. Being aggrieved, the MCA and respondent No.2 filed appeals viz., Company Appeal (AT) Nos.346-347 of 2018 before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the NCLAT’) and the NCLAT passed an order on 15.10.2018 granting stay against institution or continuation of any suits or proceedings. In the light of the order passed by the NCLAT, the Commercial Court has rejected the application under Section 9 of the A&C Act. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not a party to the proceeding before the NCLAT and therefore, the order of stay does not operate as bar. 7. In the light of the order passed by the NCLAT, the Commercial Court has rejected the application under Section 9 of the A&C Act. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not a party to the proceeding before the NCLAT and therefore, the order of stay does not operate as bar. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the record. 8. Once the proceeding under the provisions of the IBC stand admitted, the subject matter thereof would become non-arbitrable and the order passed by the NCLT operates in rem (see Indus Biotech Private Limited v. Kotak India Venture (offshore) Fund, (2021) 6 SCC 436 . 9. In view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Supreme Court, the contention that the appellant is not a party to the proceeding before the NCLAT and therefore, the order passed by the NCLAT does not bind it, cannot be sustained. 10. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.