1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 111 OF 2008 M/s. Zenith Metaplast Private Limited. ... Petitioner. V/s. M/s. Karia Hotels Private Limited & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Neel Mohan Pungalia for the Petitioner. Mr. A.V. Anturkar i/b. V.B. Tapkir for Respondents 1 to 5. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 5th APRIL 2010. P.C. :- This Contempt Petition is thoroughly misconceived. From the record it is apparent that the order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 by the District Court and on Appeal under Section 37 of the said Act by this Court proceeds on the basis that there was an agreement between parties. Equally, in both orders it is noted that the Respondents’ case is that the agreement is terminated. The termination is stated to be something of which the Petitioner claims to be unaware of. Be that as it may, main arbitral proceedings are pending. The orders passed by the District Court and this Court must be read as a whole. It was an assurance given to the Court that the Respondents would apply for renewal of the license in 2 question. The Respondents have an explanation to the same and they state that the renewal is depending upon several forms being submitted and with appropriate particulars. Renewal is not something which either the Court grants or the parties can claim to be by themselves. It is for the authorities under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 to renew the license. The order must be seen in the backdrop of the peculiar disputes and the facts before this Court. 2. Considering the same and in the light of the affidavits placed on record, to my mind, the Contempt Jurisdiction is not the remedy available to the Petitioner. The Petitioner must pursue the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal and if he feels that there are further acts which would constitute changed circumstances, it would be open to apply for appropriate interim measures. Both sides can place their respective cases with regard to the compliance of the clauses of the agreement including whether renewals have been applied for or not. Leaving open the remedy in that behalf, so also all contentions therein, this Contempt Petition is dismissed. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.) 3