1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 715 OF 2009 M/s. Truly Creative Developers Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Labha Shubha Properties Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr. M.D. Nagale i/by Mr. G.N. Salunkhe for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 11th December, 2009. P.C.- 1 The petitioner has invoked Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Arbitration Act), whereby the challenge is made to the interlocutory order dated 25th August, 2008 passed by the learned sole Arbitrator after hearing both the parties. 2 Admittedly, the Arbitration Proceeding is pending. Now, new Arbitrator has been appointed. That itself in my view, cannot be the reason to interfere with the order which was passed after hearing both the parties and which remained intact till this date. 3 The learned Arbitrator has observed that- "Having heard the Learned advocates for the parties, I am satisfied that the objections raised to the validity of the agreement raise triable issues that cannot be satisfactorily decided at this stage without evidence and trial. As to consideration not being paid, there is a specific declaration in 2 the agreement that it has been paid, though the Claimants give their own version of why certain amounts were paid. That again raises a triable issue." “It is open to the parties to arrive at some workable solution to carry on further development on the suit property and apply for modification of this order”. “Liberty to apply for variation of this order on the basis of any agreed workable arrangement as to further development.” 4 Having granted liberty to the parties to apply for variation of the order and also to arrive at some workable solution to carry on further development on the suit property and even for modification of the order, I see, there is no reason to interfere with the order which has been in force since January, 2008, in the sense, that even the learned Arbitrator has passed the order based upon the order passed by this Court dated 11th January, 2008, directing the parties to maintain status-quo as recorded by the City Civil Court and to continue the same. 5 In view of above, the liberty is granted to the Petitioner to apply for appropriate order or modification based upon any new material or any new development and/or for any workable solution as observed above. 6 The Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)