1 75.arbpl.1174.10 skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO.1174 OF 2010 L & T. Finance Limited ....Petitioner V/s. Sahyadri Earthmovers & Ors. ....Respondents Ms.Shakuntala Joshi i/by S.I.Joshi & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.U.S.Samudrala for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 25 th OCTOBER, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The petition is heard finally. 2. The petition has been filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. An identical petition was filed which was disposed of by an order and judgment dated 21st April 2010. The learned Judge noted the statement on behalf of the Petitioner that the hearing before the arbitrator has concluded and that the parties were awaiting the award. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge held that it is not appropriate to pass an order for possession of the equipment. 3. Ms.Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner states that the statement was made by her under an erroneous impression. She states that the arbitration proceedings are in fact going on before the learned arbitrator and the matter is not closed for making an award. 2 75.arbpl.1174.10 4. Assuming this to be so, it does not contribute a change in circumstances entitling the Petitioner to take out a fresh petition for the same reliefs. The Petitioner’s remedy is to file an application for review before the same Court. 5. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. -