ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.3816 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3816 OF 2008 PETITION NO.3816 OF 2008 Sachin Shantilal Parakh ...Petitioner Vs. L & T Finance Ltd. ...Respondents. Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Mrs.Shakuntala Joshi i/by Mr. S.I.Joshi & Co. for for Respondent No.1. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 15th July, 2008 : 15th July, 2008 : 15th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for respective parties. 2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the Application of the Respondent and the Petitioner’s dispute raised in the suit was referred to the Arbitrator. The Petitioner filed the Civil suit against the Respondent for permanent injunction restraining the Respondent from taking illegal possession of the vehicles. The Petitioner also filed an interim application and claimed temporary injunction in terms of the permanent injunction asked for in the suit. The Trial Court, initially granted ( 2 ) temporary injunction in favour of the Petitioner. After receipt of the summons the Respondent appeared and filed an application with prayer to refer the dispute in the suit to the Arbitrator in pursuance of Clause 17 of the an Agreement entered between the Petitioner and the Respondents. The Trial Court allowed this application and referred the dispute to the Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. This order is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 3. Execution of the agreement is not disputed by the present Petitioner. The clause 17 of the Arbitration Act made in this agreement is also not disputed. The application to refer the matter to the Arbitrator is opposed by the Respondent on the sole ground that the copy of the agreement was never given to him. The Trial Court after hearing the parties, held that the non receipt of copy of the agreement is not the ground to refuse, to refer the dispute to the Arbitrator especially in view of the admitted position of existance of a clauses of Arbitration in an agreement. I do not see any error or perversity in the approach adopted by the trial court. The Petition is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed. ( 3 ) 4. The trial court initially granted an ex-parte injunction in favour of the Petitioner and after the impugned order was passed, this Court granted status-quo in aforesaid petition, which came to be continued from time to time. In that view of the matter and to enable the Petitioner to apply before the learned Arbitrator for interim relief, the status-quo order granted earlier shall continue for the period of 2 weeks from today. Needless to mention that this order is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the parties. 5. The Writ Petition is, accordingly disposed of. ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)