1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.465 OF 2007 Nand Kishor Bhandari .. Petitioner versus Gopal Ram Prit Singh .. Respondent ... Mr.D.D. Madon, Sr. Counsel with Ms.Soma Singh i/b M/s.Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the petitioiner. Mr.Kedar Wagle for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 15th April 2008 P.C.: 1. By consent, heard finally at the stage of admission itself. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays leave to delete the name of respondent no.2. Request is granted. Name of respondent no.2 be deleted from the title clause forthwith. 2 3. Mr.Madon, learned counsel for the petitioner says that he is not claiming any reliefs in respect of property described in Exhibit-B to the petition. 4. By this petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 (for short ’the Act’) the petitioner seeks an order of injunction restraining the respondent from an injunction from dealing with by way of sale, transfer, mortgage, gift, or in any other way creating any third party rights in respect of the property bearing Survey No.139 and 140 at Parel, Sewri Division, Parel more particularly described in Exhibit-D to the plaint. (for short ’the said property’) 5. By a deed dated 16th February 2004, the petitioner and respondent entered into a partnership to carry on business of Builders, Contractors, Land Developers and Real Estate dealers. Clause no.19 of the partnership deed provides that all disputes in respect of the partnership arising between the partners or anybody claiming through them shall be resolved by arbitration. By an agreement for development Pawanputra Co-operative Housing Society (proposed) (for short ’the Society’) conferred on the 3 petitioner and the respondent had the development rights of the said property. 6. It appears that disputes have arisen between the petitioner and the respondent over the development and according to the petitioner, the respondent falsely got another firm registered with identical name and is trying to develop the said property. Petitioner, therefore, seeks injunction restraining the respondent from carrying out the development alone. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent opposing the prayer for injunction submitted that the contract for development entrusted to the firm of petitioner and respondent has been terminated by the society and therefore the injunction should not be granted. If so, then obviously respondent no.1 has no right of carrying out the development of the said property. If the contract subsists, the respondent cannot carry out the development of said property without the concurrance of the petitioner who is his partner. Thus looked at in either way, the respondent alone is not entitled to develop the said property. 8. In the circumstances, in my view, petitioner is entitled to a conditional order of injunction. 4 Hence I pass the following order:- O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R . The respondent is restrained from selling, transferring, mortgaging or in any other way creating any third party rights in the said property described in Exhibit-D to the plaint or any flats or buildings to be constructed thereon. This injunction shall remain valid for a period of 12 weeks during which the petitioner would be at liberty to get the Arbitral Tribunal constituted and seek relief from the Arbitral Tribunal u/s.17 of the Act. . It is clarified that the Arbitral Tribunal shall be entitled to consider the application for interim reliefs if any, made by petitioner on its own merits without being in any way influenced by any of the observations made herein. (D.G. KARNIK, J) 5 \