1 NMS1823.07.sxw JPP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1823 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3800 OF 1996 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1824 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3950 OF 1996 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1825 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3952 OF 1996 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1826 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3901 OF 1996 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1828 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3910 OF 1996 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1829 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO. 3951 OF 1996 Oil and Natural Gas Commission Ltd. ... Plaintiffs. V/s. Urmila and Co. Pvt. Ltd. ... Defendants. Mr. A. Delhiwalla i/b. M/s. Vyas & Bhalwal for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Christophar D’Souza with G.S. Poojary i/b. Cr. Bayley & Co. for the Defendants. 2 NMS1823.07.sxw CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATED : 24th SEPTEMBER 2010. P.C. :- By these Notice of Motions, the Plaintiffs want that Defendants should deposit a sum of Rs.2.00 crores and odd alongwith the interest as specified in the prayer clause (a) before passing of a decree. By prayer clause (b) it is prayed that the Suit be taken up at an early date. By prayer clause (c) it is prayed that the dispute between parties covered by agreement dated 31st January 1991 be referred to Arbitration. 2. As the matter was called out, learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs submitted that some time be given to the Plaintiffs to rely upon additional documents in support of the case of the Plaintiffs. The Motion is taken out in the year 2007. Substantial time has elapsed. If at all the Plaintiffs wanted to rely upon additional documents, they should have been ready in all respect. Hence, the request is rejected. 3. So far as the prayer for reference of the dispute to the arbitration, the facts of this case are governed by Arbitration Act, 1940. Hence, unless both the parties are ready for Arbitration, it is not possible to grant this prayer. Learned Counsels for the Defendants stated that the Defendants are not interested in getting the matter referred to arbitration. Hence, the relief in terms of prayer clause (c) is rejected. 3 NMS1823.07.sxw 4. So far as prayer clause (a) is concerned, the Plaintiffs wanted to protect their interest by deposit of certain amount in this Court before the decree is passed. The Plaintiffs want relief in terms of prayer clause (a). 5. After having perused the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C. and the present application, it is clear that the relief sought by the Plaintiffs in terms of prayer clause (a) calling upon the Defendants to deposit a particular amount in the Court cannot be granted. The Plaintiffs could have sought an appropriate relief in order to see that the Defendants should put to terms in the nature of furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Court as per provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of the C.P.C. Hence, the present application for the relief in terms of prayer clause (a) is not maintainable and the same is required to be dismissed. Needless to mention that if the Plaintiffs intend to take out proceedings as per the provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C., they are free to do so. No views are expressed on the merits of the matter. So far as disposal of the Suit at an early date, no specific order is required to be passed at this juncture. The Suit can come up in usual course. 6. Hence, following order is passed to dispose of these Notice of Motions :- (i) The Motions are dismissed as not maintainable so far as prayer clause (a) is concerned. 4 NMS1823.07.sxw (ii) Prayer for early hearing is rejected. (iii) Prayer for reference of dispute to the arbitration is already rejected. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs. (v) If the Plaintiffs intend to take out proceedings as per provisions of Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C., they are free to do so. This order shall not come in their way. (vi) There shall be no order as to costs. (R.Y. GANOO, J.)