1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Arbitration Appeal No. 8 of 2009 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2884 of 2009 Nazim H. Kazi ...Appellant v/s. Kokan Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. ...Respondents Ms. Anita Craestilino i/b. A.S.Shaikh for the appellant. Shri Y.R. Naik for the Respondents. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATED:- August 07, 2009. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. This Appeal is directed against the order passed by the Arbitral Tribunal of the Kokan Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. Dated 23rd July, 2009 rejecting the application for inspection of records/documents filed by the Appellant. The said application was filed on 22nd July, 2009 presumably in view of the liberty granted by this Court in order dated 18th July, 2009 passed by this Court in Arbitration Appeal No. 6/2009. The Arbitrator has rejected the application essentially on the finding that the same is pre-mature. It is this finding which is subject matter of challenge in present Appeal. 2 3. It is not in dispute that the Appellant has now moved separate application before the Arbitral Tribunal for amendment of pleadings whereby the Appellant intends to challenge the convening of meeting on 5th July, 2009 as also Resolution passed therein. In my opinion, no fault can be found with the view taken by the Arbitral Tribunal that the application for inspection in relation to the matters concerning the said meeting was pre-mature. So long as application for amendment which has been moved by the Appellant before the Tribunal is granted and such amendment is carried out in the Petition, the justification for giving inspection of any records or documents concerning the disputed meeting or the Resolution passed therein would not arise. In my opinion, therefore, no interference is warranted in this Appeal. However, at the sametime it is clarified that rejection of subject application by the Arbitral Tribunal which order has been confirmed by this Court today will not come in the way of the Appellant to take out fresh application for inspection of the records after the Arbitral Tribunal permits the Appellant to amend the pleadings so as to challenge the factum of convening of meeting dated 5th July, 2009 as also the Resolution passed therein. Needless to observe that, that application will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law. 3. Counsel for the Appellant in the light of discussion in Paragraph 10 and 12 of the impugned decision would contend that those observations may come in the way of the Appellant in the fresh application to be filed by the Appellant for the relief of inspection of records/documents. In my opinion, the observation made therein is only recording contention of the Respondent. It is not in the nature of rejecting the plea of the Appellant or for that matter accepting the stand of the Respondent as such. The reason for dismissal of the subject 3 application by the Arbitral Tribunal, however, has been recorded in Paragraph 14 and 15 of the Judgment under Appeal to the effect that the application preferred by the Appellant was pre-mature. That is the only basis on which the matter proceeded before the Arbitral Tribunal. In any case, as mentioned earlier if Appellants application for amendment of pleadings is allowed, relief of inspection of records/documents in relation to the meeting convened on 5th July, 2009 or the Resolution passed therein, that application will have to be decided on its own merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned decision. 4. In view of the above, no other issue arises for consideration in this Appeal. The same deserves to be disposed off on the above terms. Ordered accordingly. 5. At this stage, Counsel for the Appellant prays that the interim protection granted by this Court on 18th July, 2009 which has been extended for further period subsequently, the same be continued for two weeks from today. Although, this request is resisted by the Counsel for the Respondent, in the interest of justice and as last opportunity, Appellant would be free to take out application for appropriate ad-interim/interim-relief as may be advised in terms of liberty given in Order dated 18th July, 2009, within one week from today. If such application is filed, the Arbitral Tribunal may decide the same as expeditiously as possible to enable the Appellant to take recourse to said application. Interim protection granted shall continue for a period of two weeks from today. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J