Bombay High Court

ASHOK INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITEDversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Decided: 25 August 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is dismissed as infructuous because the main proceedings have ended and the challenge to the interlocutory order is moot.

Summary

Ashok Infrastructure Limited filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a District Judge's order that allowed three third parties to be impleaded in its Section 9 arbitration application. The petitioner argued that the interlocutory order was improper, but the District Court had already disposed of the Section 9 application on 1 April 2013. The High Court noted that the main arbitration proceedings had concluded and the challenge to the impleadment order had become moot. Consequently, the Court held that the petition was infructuous and ordered its disposal. Any interim relief previously granted was vacated.

Issues considered

Whether an interlocutory order permitting the impleadment of third parties in a Section 9 arbitration proceeding can be challenged after the main proceedings have been concluded

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 9

Subjects

Arbitration
Section 9
Impleadment
Interlocutory order
Writ petition
Infructuous
Civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                                           19-WP-110-2011.doc



                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                              WRIT PETITION NO. 110 OF 2011

                      Ashok Infrastructure Limited                              ...Petitioner
SNEHA                            Versus
NITIN                 The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.                         ...Respondents
CHAVAN
Digitally signed by
                                                                ****
SNEHA NITIN           None for the Petitioner.
CHAVAN
Date: 2026.08.25      Ms. A.A. Purav, AGP for the Respondent No.1/State.
20:15:14 +0530
                      Mr. Hrishikesh Nabar i/b Dr. Uday P Warunjikar for the Respondent
                      No.7.
                                                       ****

                                                     CORAM :       M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                       DATE :      25th AUGUST, 2026

                      P.C. :


                      1.             None for the Petitioner.

                      2.             Petition is filed challenging the order dated 18.12.2010 passed
                      by the District Judge-7, Pune below Exhs. 21, 22 and 23 in proceedings
                      filed by the Petitioner under Section 9 of the Arbitration and
                      Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘the said Act’ for short). The applications below
                      Exh. 21,22 and 23 were filed by 3rd persons claiming to be affected by
                      orders that may be passed in the proceedings. By the impugned order,
                      the applications of 3rd party were allowed and the Petitioner was
                      directed to implead them.

                      3.             Record shows that on 10.01.2012, the petition was admitted
                      by granting Rule, however, the impugned order was not stayed, but
                      earlier interim order permitting the Petitioner to collect toll was
                      continued. On the same day, hearing of Section 9 application was



                      Sneha Chavan                                                              1
                                                         19-WP-110-2011.doc



expedited and the learned District Judge was directed to hear and
dispose of the application in a time bound manner.

4.             Recently on 29.06.2026, following order was passed:

               “1. Learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner states that the
               Petitioner has taken back the case papers and as such he has no
               instructions.
               2. Nobody is appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
               3. Issue notice to the Petitioner, returnable on 20.07.2026.
               4. In the meantime, Advocate for the Respondents to take
               instructions as to whether the hearing of Misc. Application before
               the District Court at Pune (which was expedited under earlier order
               of this Court) is disposed of and if disposed, produce a copy."

5.             Today, learned Counsel for the Respondent No.7 has placed on
record a copy of the order dated 01.04.2013 passed by District Judge-8,
Pune by which the application under Section 9 (C.M.A.No. 865/2010)
itself is disposed of. A copy of the said order is taken on record and
marked ‘X’ for identification.

6.             Considering that main proceedings have come to an end, the
challenge in the petition to the interlocutory order permitting
impleadment, has become infructuous.

7.             Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of as infrustuous.
Interim/ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated.



                                                       (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Sneha Chavan                                                                  2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…