pvr 1 appl103-11 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL(LODG)NO.103 OF 2011 IN ARBITRATION PETITION (LODG) NO.1291 OF 2010 Essar Wind Power Pvt.Ltd. ...Appellant vs. Repower System AG. ...Respondent --- Mr.Virag Tulzapurkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Nikhil Sakhardande, Rajendra Banot, Abhishek Tiwari, Ms.Sonali i/b. AZB & Partners, for Appellant. Mr.Aspi Chinoy, Sr.Advocate with Mr.F.E.Devitre, Sr.Advocate, Ms.Falguni Thakkar, Milan Choudhary & Sarojanand Jha i/b. Doijodo & Associates, for Respondent. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED: 23rd February,2011 pvr 2 appl103-11 P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges order dated 1.2.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge declining to grant any interim relief in favour of the Appellant under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. 2. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides in detail. We have also perused the record. The learned Counsel appearing for Appellant urged that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Petitioner had committed breach of the agreement by not submitting N.O.C. simultaneously with the guarantee, is erroneous. The learned Counsel s main submission is that though the petitioner had given bank guarantee and was also willing to give N.O.C., the N.O.C. was not actually handed over because the Respondent did not give offer for supply of two machines as agreed. After having perused the record, we find that it was agreed pvr 3 appl103-11 between the parties that the bank guarantee and the N.O.C. will be submitted by the Petitioner simultaneously and on submission of those two things simultaneously by the Petitioner, the Respondent was to make an offer. Admittedly, the Petitioner has not submitted the N.O.C. simultaneously with the bank guarantee, and therefore, the Respondent was justified in not giving the offer. What is pertinent to be noted is that having no objection from the Petitioner was necessary for the Respondent because it is only that N.O.C. which would have actually permitted sale of machines by the Respondent in India. 3. Taking overall view of the matter therefore, in our opinion, as the decision not to grant interim order in favour of the Petitioner is based on a pure finding of facts and the learned Single Judge, for recording that finding of fact has taken the entire material on record into consideration and it is not even the pvr 4 appl103-11 complaint of the petitioner that any material has been excluded from consideration by the learned Single Judge, the view taken by the learned Single Judge is a possible view taken of the material on record, no interference is called for at our hands. The appeal is disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (K.K.TATED,J.)