1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2010 (M/s. Gaidhane Builders & Developers & Anr. vs. Shri Prabhakar Harishchandra Bagwe & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. APRIL 28, 2010. Heard Shri Gurve, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents. The present appeal is under Section 37(1)(a) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The application under Section 11 of the Act to appoint an Arbitrator is pending before this Court. The respondents had preferred an application under Section 9 of the Act before the Principal District Judge, Nagpur, raising dispute and seeking interim order to protect their interest in the matter pending arbitration. The learned PDJ issued notice to present appellants and then noticed that there was dispute between the parties about the total sale consideration agreed and also about the area available at the site. Prima facie, it has been found that the appellants have not paid full sale consideration to present respondents. The dispute is about balance amount because according to the appellants, the agreement was for 2 Rs.1,20,00,000/- and they have paid Rs.80,00,000/-. According to the respondents, the agreement is for Rs.1,91,69,566/- and advance received is of about Rs.80,00,000/-. Shri Gurve, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that in the meanwhile, the appellants have completed the construction activity and have also placed prospective buyers in possession. He, therefore, states that without recording any express finding on the nature of controversy, the learned PDJ has passed interlocutory order. The respondents are taking advantage of that order to disturb the prospective buyers and financing institutions. The facts above clearly show that an application under Section 11 for appointment of Arbitrator is pending before the Competent Court. The learned PDJ has recorded his findings with this fact in mind. The exact amount of sale consideration agreed, balance to be paid and the area available at site are all disputed questions which can be resolved only by Arbitrator in accordance with law. The learned PDJ has found that prima facie the dispute was subsisting between parties and hence has passed orders to see that property remains available without any further encumbrance to answer the award to be passed in such proceedings. The application of mind is in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Adhunik Steels Ltd. vs. Orissa Manganese and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., reported at AIR 2007 3 SC 2569. In view of the above, I do not find any case is made out warranting any interference in Arbitration Appeal filed under Section 37(1)(a) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.