1 arbp94.11.doc ast IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.94 OF 2011 Nishat Rehman Shaikh. .. Petitioner versus Taslim Mohd. Salim Shaikh & anr. .. Respondents. Mr. Jaideep Raut i/b. B.S. & Associates, advocate for petitioner. Ms. Merlyn Monteiro, advocate for Respondent No.1. Dr. P.K.Deshmukh, advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 14TH FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C. 1 Heard both sides. This is a dispute between family members. The Petitioner and Respondent No.1 are real sister and brother, whereas the Respondent No.2 is their father, the original owner of certain immovable properties. The Petitioner states that first respondent with the consent of both Petitioner and Respondent No.2 is developing immovable property, more particularly described at Exh. G. However, there is an apprehension that no benefits will be given to the concerned parties. The Petitioner has no objection 2 arbp94.11.doc to the property being developed by the first respondent, but the apprehension is that that would be behind back of the Petitioner and Respondent No.2 and they will have no knowledge of the transactions and dealings. 2. In such circumstances, and when it is agreed that development work need not be stopped, interest of justice would be served, if it is directed that the first respondent while developing the property if desirous of creating any third party rights, they may not be created, so also the property should not be transferred, without prior leave of this court. Such being the nature of interim measures and pending arbitral reference, nothing further survives in this Petition. Hence, Petition is disposed of on the above terms. 3. Ms.Monteriro, learned advocate appearing for the Respondent No.1 assures to file vakalatnama for first respondent on or before Friday, 18/2/2011. Assurance accepted. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)