1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.432 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.10 OF 2009 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3433 OF 2009 M/s Ashapura Developers .... Appellant Vs. Aditya Birla Retail Ltd. .... Respondent Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.A.A. Joshi i/by Mr.Jagdish G. Reddy, Advocate for appellant. Mr.D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate with Mr.B.B. Saraf, Mr.Durgesh Khanapurkar & Mr.Sachin Chandanana i/by M.K. Ambalal & Company for respondent. Coram : D.K. Deshmukh & SMT.R.P. SondurBaldota, JJ. Date : 8th June, 2010 P.C. 1. Admit. 2. Heard. By consent of parties, the order impugned in the petition is set aside. 3. The Arbitration Petition No.10 of 2009 is remitted back to the learned Single Judge. We indicated to the parties that we propose to grant ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (e) of the Arbitration Petition, which will operate during the pendency of the proceedings before the learned single Judge. The learned Counsel appearing for the 2 Respondent expressed his inability to give consent for passing of ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (e), though he consented to the above order for setting aside the impugned order and remitting the proceedings back. Therefore, we grant ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (e) of the Arbitration Petition for the following reasons. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that keeping the property unused during the pendency of the petition and as Arbitration proceedings will not serve anybody’s interest and though ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (e) of the petition may continue to operate during the pendency of the proceedings, the appellant shall be permitted to grant license of the premises of which license was agreed to be granted to the original petitioner, subject to the result of the Arbitration Petition and subject to further orders that the learned Single Judge may pass. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the original petitioner. In our opinion, if creation of license is subject to result of the petition, which will not cause prejudice to the interest of the original petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that merely restraining the appellant from disposing of the premises will result in keeping the premises unused and that will not be in anybody’s interest. Therefore, we 3 grant ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (e), as observed above with the clarification that the ad-interim order will not come in the way of the appellant granting license of the premises referred to above on such terms and conditions as may be agreed between the appellant and the prospective licensee, subject to the condition that creation of the license shall be subject to the order that may be passed by the learned Single Judge in the petition. The fact that the petition is pending shall be intimated to the proposed licensee and terms shall be included in the license agreement that the creation of license is subject to the result of the petition and the final order that may be made in the petition shall be binding on the appellant and the licensee. The licensor shall before handing over possession to the licensee file an undertaking in this Court to take back possession from the licensee, if so directed by this Court. The appellant shall also supply copies of the documents executed for creation of such license to the original petitioner. The Appeal is disposed of. 5. In view of disposal of the Appeal, the Notice of Motion No.3433 of 2009 does not survive, the same is accordingly disposed of. (Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota,J) (D.K. Deshmukh, J.)