1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 1/2010. M/s. Borele Builtcom Pvt. Ltd. .vrs. Government of Maharashtra. 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. DATED : MARCH 19, 2010. Heard Shri A.M. Ghare, learned counsel for appellant. The appellant- a Collection Contractor raised some claim against government and part of it was granted. The remaining part has not been allowed and according to the appellant, the claim which has not been granted is more than Rs. 1 Crore along with interest. The dispute in relation to that amount is raised before Arbitrators and appellant contends that said proceedings are being delayed by respondents and because of this the appellant moved application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 with leave to continue as Toll Contractor even beyond 19.03.2010, the learned Principal District Judge has rejected that application. Present appeal challenges that order. Shri Ghare, learned counsel contends that Section 9 enables the appellant to move an application for securing their amount which is due from Government and in 2 present circumstances, the appellant have expressed their readiness and willingness to furnish additional Bank guarantee if they are continued beyond 19.03.2010. He contends that if any amount is found due for such period from appellant, the existing Bank guarantee can be appropriated towards it. He further states that as a condition for such continuation, this Court can direct the appellant to maintain accounts and even direct respondent to nominate one of its officers to associate with day to day working of the appellant. He has invited attention to the relevant arbitration clause and notifications in the matter. Notification giving time to appellant to operate till today i.e. till 19.03.2010 has been issued on 12.08.2009. The dispute pertains to a specified sum and the appellant is a contractor by business. It is therefore apparent that there is no question of possibility of any irreparable loss. The learned Principal District Judge has correctly appreciated the controversy. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Adhunik Steels Ltd. .vrs. Orissa Manganese (AIR 2007 SC 2563) clearly show that the appellant has not satisfied three ingredients to enable him to claim such relief. The time given to appellant is to expire today as per the notification dated 12.08.2009. I therefore, do not find any prima facie case and this Court cannot by judicial order extend that time limit. No case is made out warranting interference. Appeal is thus dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.