IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 62 of 2011 M/s Singla Realters Limited, Having its Office at B-40, Madhu Vihar, I.P. Extn., Patpar Ganj, Delhi:110091 through its authorized person Mr. Mayank Shyam. … Appellant. Versus 1. Municipal Board Parishad, Nainital through its Executive Officer. 2. President, Municipal Board Parishad, Nainital. … Respondents. Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Anant Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents. Date February 22, 2011. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application No. 1056 of 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This appeal has been preferred under Section 37A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) for quashing the impugned order dated 15-2-2011 passed in a proceeding under Section 9 of the Act, whereby the application, paper no. 4-C, for interim injunction has been rejected by the learned District Judge Nainital. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that a recovery certificate was issued against the appellant for recovery of licence fee payable under the agreement. During the continuation of execution of work under the agreement, the appellant has also claimed damages against the respondents. In the agreement, there is an arbitration clause and the appellant moved an application under Section 11 of the Act before the Chief Justice of this Court, bearing Arbitration Application No. 3 of 2010, which was allowed by order dated 23-4-2010 in view of Clause 21 of the contract agreement and the matter was referred for arbitration to the District Magistrate Nainital. This fact is not disputed that the arbitral proceedings are pending for decision. During the pendency of arbitration 2 proceedings, application under Section 9 has been moved to stay the recovery, which was being made from the appellant as arrears of land revenue. According to the appellant, the amount cannot be recovered as arrears of land revenue. The contention of Sri Sudhir Kumar, Advocate, appearing for the appellant is that the appellant has sought the adjustment of the amount, which is payable to the respondents under the agreement. So far as the amount of damages is concerned, the arbitrator/District Magistrate Nainital has to take decision after hearing both the parties to the proceedings on the basis of evidence as to what would be the amount of compensation payable to the appellant. The issue before the Arbitrator is only as to what would be the damages payable to the appellant or not. The question as to what would be the licence fee is not disputed. The learned District Judge has held that the amount of recovery is not the subject matter of arbitration dispute, therefore, the application is not maintainable. After perusing the claim petition of the appellant, this Court is also of the view that the subject-matter of the arbitration, which is to be decided by the Arbitrator, as to what amount of damages, if any, is payable to the appellant or not, therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly rejected the application of the appellant as not maintainable under Section 9 of the Act. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed outright at the admission stage. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed summarily. However, the appellant would be at liberty to assail the order of recovery, if so advised, before appropriate Forum. All pending applications stand disposed of. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP