CW 9789/08 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** 1-Civil Writ Petition No.9789/2008 Nishchal Kumar Jain Versus Mahendra Kuamr Jain & Ors. 2-Civil Writ Petition No.9717/2008 Nishchal Kumar Jain Versus Mahendra Kuamr Jain & Ors. Date of Order ::: 21/07/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Mahesh Sharma, for petitioner Mr. RP Garg, for respondent Both these petitions since involve common dispute raised by self same parties, have been heard finally and at request, are being disposed of by this order at admission stage. These petitions are directed against common judgment dt.28/07/08 (Ann.12) whereby District Judge, Dausa dismissed in Civil Misc. (Arbitration) Appeal Nos.57/07 & 14/08 of petitioner on the premise that orders impugned dt.17/10/07 & 05/11/07 of Sole Arbitrator are alleged to be interim orders; as such appeals preferred U/s 37(2) of Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 are not maintainable. The dispute is presently pending before Sole Arbitrator duly appointed vide order dt.18/03/04 in Arbitration Application No.44/03 to adjudicate all disputes having arisen between both the parties out of CW 9789/08 //2// agreement dt.16/08/93. However, vide latter order dt.11/08/06 (Ann.4) in exercise of powers U/s 15(2) of the Arbitration Act, substituted sole arbitrator and appointed Hon. Mr. Justice PK Tewari, Retired Judge. However, learned Sole Arbitrator pending proceedings passed order dt.06/07/07 (Ann.7) observing that plot No.A-6/A situated in Bapi Industrial Area, Dausa may be disposed of and transferred in whose name whosoever may offer better price among two partners, and the Arbitrator would not be responsible for proceedings initiated in regard to plot in question; and the Arbitrator also observed that reserved price is of Rs.150/- per sq. yard at the time of passing of the order, which may be considered to be price on which plot could be transferred in the name of parties concerned. Applications were filed and proceedings also continued before Arbitrator and finally vide order dt.17/10/07,it was observed that respondent herein may have first opportunity to deposit amount @ Rs.150/- per sq. yard and if he fails to do so, opportunity would be afforded to petitioner to purchase plot in question. However, in terms of order of learned Arbitrator passed on 17/10/07, since first opportunity was afforded to Mahendra Kumar Jain (respondent), a sum of Rs.5,32,800/- was CW 9789/08 //3// deposited by him on 03/11/07. latter order dt. 05/11/07 was passed to send order dt.17/10/07 to the RIICO. Both these orders of Sole Arbitrator were assailed before District Judge U/s 37 of Arbitration Act. However, after hearing the parties, learned District Judge observed that since orders impugned are of interim nature, appeals U/s 37 are not maintainable – as a consequence whereof, both the appeals of petitioner were dismissed. In course of arguments, Counsel for petitioner on instructions submits that petitioner is present in person and is ready to deposit a sum of Rs.Ten lacs out of his personal funds, through Bank draft in the name of M/s Vardhman Industries for being deposited in Bank account duly operated by Sole Arbitrator within one month from today and may be granted liberty to make bid before Sole Arbitrator for better price of plot in question presently the property of the Firm. Counsel for respondent after seeking instructions from his client who too is present today in person submit that he has agreed to the request made by petitioner that if petitioner deposits Rs.Ten lacs from his own funds through bank draft in the name of the Firm within one month from today, both the parties may be free to tender bid before Sole CW 9789/08 //4// Arbitrator for fetching better prices of the plot in dispute. However, Counsel for respondents further submits that if petitioner fails to deposit Rs.Ten lacs as agreed to between the parties (supra) within one month, orders impugned herein may stand revived and the Arbitrator may be permitted to proceed further in accordance with law. In view of agreement arrived at between the parties in course of arguments, this Court considers it appropriate to modify the order of Sole Arbitrator passed on 17/10/07 and it is hereby clarified that if petitioner deposits Rs.Ten lacs from his own funds through bank draft in the name of the Firm within one month from today in the Bank account being operated by the Arbitrator, who will be free to permit both the parties (petitioner & respondent herein) to offer bid for fetching better price of the plot in question of the Firm, and if petitioner fails to deposit a sum of Rs.Ten lacs within one month from today, order dt.17/10/07 would stand revived and the Sole Arbitrator will be free to proceed further in accordance with law. In terms of observations (supra), both the writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p4/ 9789CW08-Jul21(2)Arb.doc