1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MCA (ARBITRATION) NO.935/2010 [Anand s/o Harikishan Garodia .vrs. Smt. Anuprita w/o Nitin Dongre and others] ................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : JULY 22, 2011. Heard Shri S.C. Mehadia, learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and Shri Sharma, learned counsel for the non-applicants/respondents. The original agreement having arbitration clause styled as agreement to sell dated 29th November, 2006 is not in dispute. The cancellation deed thereof executed on 26th September, 2007 is also not in dispute. According to Advocate Shri Mehadia, the terms and conditions of cancellation deed were not complied with and hence as per its Clause 7, the agreement to sell with all its clauses revived and hence arbitration clause is restored. Accordingly, the 2 petitioner gave legal notice and they have also pointed Advocate Prakash Kothari as their arbitrator. Advocate Shri Sharma, in reply, relies upon averment in paragraph 6, to urge that after payment of first instalment, the present applicant showed interest in buying another property and, therefore, amount was to be appropriated towards the purchase price of that property. He states that, in such situation, contention that the terms and conditions of cancellation deed were not fulfilled or then earlier agreement revived are misconceived. He is trying to place before the court photostat copy of e-mail which according to him his client traced out in the morning today. The alleged e-mail, according to him, is forwarded by the applicant to the respondents and it shows his inclination to buy another property. It is apparent that the dispute exists between the parties. Dispute is also about the fulfillment of terms and conditions of cancellation deed and payment as per its Clause 7. If payments are not made, as stipulated therein, the arrangement in agreement to sell dated 29th November, 2006 revives. The payments, in fact, have not been made. Hence, in this situation, I find that disputed questions 3 can be looked into by the arbitrator. Hence, at this stage, question was put to learned counsel to name respondent’s arbitrator. Learned Counsel, upon instructions, requested the Court to appoint Advocate Shri Ajay Kukde. Accordingly, Advocate Shri Ajay Kukde is appointed as second arbitrator in the matter. Both the arbitrators can nominate umpire and proceeded further. MCA stands disposed of accordingly. JUDGE Gulande