1 arbp1233-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1233 OF 2010 Eminent Skills Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. Venture Business Advisors Pvt. Ltd. ....Respondent Mr.D.D. Madon, Senior Counsel with Mr.Karthik Somasundaran i/b DSK Legal for the Petitioner. Mr.Rahul Narichania with Mr.G.R. Mehta for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 22ND NOVEMBER, 2010. P.C. :- 1. The petition has been filed under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. The parties had entered into a service agreement dated 8.9.2009. The agreement inter-alia recorded in clause 2.3.3 that for the services rendered earlier, the respondent had agreed to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/-. 3. The respondent denies its liability. It does not deny having executed the agreement. It is however, contended that clause 2.3.3 was introduced at the request of and to accommodate the petitioner to enable it to show some minimum business in the relevant financial year 2009-2010 to meet its target in India. The respondent contend that it was agreed and understood that the clause was not to be acted upon and the amount shall 2 arbp1233-10 be adjusted towards the service to be rendered in future. To say the least, this aspect, must await the decision of the arbitral tribunal. The admission that the amount is due is contained in a formal document. There is nothing on record that even remotely supports the respondent’s denial. The respondent would have to lead oral evidence to establish its defence. The fact that the particulars of the services that were rendered in the past were not furnished, is not conclusive proof of the respondent’s defence at this stage. 4. The petitioner referred to certain properties movable and immovable which it alleged belongs to the respondent. The respondent in its affidavit in reply stated that in the course of time, it has disposed of most of the properties allegedly in the normal course of business. It stated that it has now no concern with the said properties. The alleged disposition of the assets was after 31.3.2009 i.e. the date of the balance sheet disclosing these properties. In these circumstances, the petitioner’s claim, requires to be considered. 5. The petition is disposed of by the following order :- i). The respondent shall not dispose of, alienate, encumber, part with possession of or create any third party right, title and/or interest in any of its immovable properties without the leave of the Court. The respondent shall on or before 15.12.2010 disclose on affidavit its immovable properties. Liberty to the parties to apply to restrict the order to the extent of the petitioner’s claim qua any property. No order as to costs.