IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Company Application No. 632 of 2008 in Company Petition No. 409 of 2007 1. Vashu Dewandas Menghani and others ..Petitioners vs. 1. West Coast Builders Pvt.Ltd. and others ..Respondents Mr.D.J.Khambatta, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Thakkar i/b Thakkar and Co. for petitioners. Mr.F.D.D’vitre, Sr.Advocate with Mr.N.F.Dhilla i/b Hariani and Co. for respondent nos. 1 to 9. Mr.A.R.Pandey for intervenor Ms.Aruna Mehta i/b M/s S.Pathak and Co. for respondent nos. 7 and 8. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 5th May, 2008 5th May, 2008 5th May, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. This company application was placed before me on 17th April, 2008 and 30th April, 2008 for ad-interim relief. 2. After it was argued at some length on 2nd May, 2008 (adjourned date), some without prejudice suggestions were made by both sides to each other. The matter was adjourned till today for orders. 3. At today’s hearing Mr.Thakkar appearing for the applicant and Mr.D’vitre, Sr. Advocate appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4 informed me that both sides have agreed that the dispute between the petitioner/applicant and respondent nos. 1 to 4 shall be referred for sole arbitration of Mr.Mahendra K.Ghelani, Advocate and Solicitor practicing in this Court. 4. When attention of the parties was invited to the fact that Mr.Ghelani has been impleaded as respondent no.7 to this company petition and company application, Mr.Thakkar and Mr.D’vitre on instructions from their respective clients make a statement that their clients have no objection to the appointment of Mr.Ghelani even though he is a party before this Court in the present proceedings. They would also have no objection to his appointment even if he is share holder of respondent no.1 company. Both sides state that they would not raise any objection to his appointment as Arbitrator on the ground that he is a respondent to these proceedings and that he is share holder in respondent no.1 company. 5. Without prejudice to their rights and contentions, respondent nos. 1 to 4 make the following statements:- i) That respondent no.2 shall furnish a Bank guarantee in the sum of Rs.30,00,000/- in the name of Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court within a period of four (4) weeks from today. ii) That the premises which are more particularly mentioned in prayer clause (a) of the application and in the earlier order of this Court are in possession of Shri Ravi Agrawal and another company. iii) The respondent no.1 company only retained the premises described as Main shop (Part A) admeasuring approximately 2000 sq.ft. spread over the ground floor and basement level. Part B of the Main shop consists of the rear portion of the Main shop and admeasures approximately 2000 sq.ft. Part B of the Main shop was sold by the Company to the knowledge of Vasha Meghani Group as also to the knowledge of the said Kantilal Parekh, who at the relevant time was the Chartered Accountant of the Company to a company known as "Intercraft (South) Exports Pvt.Ltd., by a registered agreement dated 6th December, 1979. The said Intercraft (South) Exports Pvt.Ltd. have been in possession of the ground floor of the Main shop B ever since 1981, when the construction of the premises was completed and possession was handed over to them by the company. The said Intercraft permitted the company to use the basement of Part B as its registered office as a gratuitous licensee. iv) Mr.D’vitre states on instructions that the above arrangement will continue without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides and that no third party rights would be created by respondent nos.1 and 2 with regard to the portions which have been carved out as above. v) This order shall operate as interim measure during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings. In addition, the parties are at liberty to apply for such further interim reliefs as are permissible in law. vi) It is also agreed between the parties that respondent no.4 who has been purportedly inducted as a Director on the Board of Directors of respondent no.1 shall not act as such until further orders on the application for interim measures or otherwise in the pending arbitral proceedings. vii) Further the repairs work that is mentioned in the order passed on 17th April, 2008 and 30th April, 2008 if permissible under the repairs permission or other authority from the Bombay Municipal Corporation shall continue without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides and the same would not prevent the applicant from seeking such reliefs interim/final as are necessary and in the interest of justice. viii) Save and except the above both sides agree that the statusquo as of today shall be maintained with regard to the assets and share holdings of respondent no.1. 6. The Company Application and Company petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 7. When this order was being passed M/s Intercrafts Ltd. sought to intervene in the proceedings and their Advocate urges that the said company is in possession of the premises which are described and shown on the ground floor, basement, Om Chambers, Campes Corner, Mumbai 400 026. This company claims to be the owner of the shop under the agreement dated 6th December, 1980 so also claims to be in possession of the shop. 8. Needless to state that I have recorded the arrangement which has been arrived at between the parties to the company petition and company application M/s Intercraft Ltd. is not a party to these proceedings. If it claims any right in both these properties its remedy is to adopt appropriate proceedings and needless to state that without prejudice arrangement recorded above would not preclude the said M/s Intercrafts Ltd. from instituting such proceedings as are permissible in law to assert its right, title and interest in the immovable property. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)