1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.567 OF 2009 In NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2824 OF 2009 In SUMMARY SUIT NO.2198 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4172 OF 2009 In APPEAL NO.567 OF 2009 In NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2824 OF 2009 In SUMMARY SUIT NO.2198 OF 2008 Falcon Marine Management Private Limited : Appellant/ Orig.Defendant V/s. Cavendish Shipping Ltd. : Respondent/ Orig. Plaintiff .... Mr.F. Dubhash with Ms Divya Gurbukani i/b. Dutt Menon Dunmorrsett for the appellant. Mr.Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sharan Jagtiani and Mr.Ankit Rajput i/b. Dave & Girish & Co., for the respondent. ..... CORAM : J.N.PATEL, ACTING C.J. & B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 01, 2010. P.C.: By the present appeal, the appellant takes exception to the order 2 dated 9.11.2009 by which the Notice of Motion moved by the present appellant-defendant for referring the matter to arbitration as provided in the shareholders’ agreement dated 14.11.2000 came to be dismissed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in accordance with the shareholders’ agreement dated 14.11.2000, Falcon Marine Management Private Limited has been formed by Polaris Marine Management Pvt. Ltd. and Cavendish Shipping Limited. He, therefore, submits that if there is any dispute between Polaris Marine Management Pvt. Ltd. and the appellant i.e. Falcon Marine Management Private Limited, the same will have to be referred to arbitration. The learned single Judge has found that in view of clause 8.7 of the shareholders’ agreement, any dispute between Polaris Marine Management Pvt. Ltd. and Cavendish Shipping Limited which are parties to the said agreement will have to be referred to arbitration. It has been found that the defendant was not a party to the said agreement. It has further been found that there was a further joint venture agreement and the relationship of the plaintiff and the defendant was regulated by the said agreement. It is found that in the said agreement dated 15.12.2003, there was no provision for referring the matter to arbitration. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that there is an illegality or error in the order passed by the learned single Judge warranting interference. 3 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the Notice of Motion does not survive and the same stands dismissed. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE B. R. GAVAI, J.