1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.1 OF 2010 Siddhivinayak Realties Pvt.Ltd. .... Appellant. Vs. V Hotels Ltd.& Ors .....Respondents. ---- Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Sr.counsel with Mr. Parimal Shroff, Mr.D.V. Devkar and Mr. Himanshu Mahajan, Tania Johny i/b M/s Parimal K. Shroff & Co.,for the Appellant. Mr. Rohit Kapadia, Sr. counsel with Mr. Vaibhav Joglekar, Mr. Vatsal Shah i/b M/s Advani & Co., for the Respondents. ---- CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The present appeal arises from the order passed by the learned Arbitrator dated 23.11.2009. 2. Heard Shri Chinoy, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant and Shri Kapadia, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 3. Mr. Chinoy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits that though in an application for interim reliefs under 2 section-17 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 several reliefs were prayed for, the learned Arbitrator while considering the matter at the ad- interim stage, has only considered two reliefs and has not even touch at the matter in so far as rest of the reliefs prayed in the application are concerned. He submits that one of the reliefs which was sought was that the appellant should be permitted to pay off the debts of the Respondents. He submits that this was so in the event the claim of the Appellant for specific performance was granted, the amount paid off towards debts could be adjusted against the decreetal amount. Alternatively he submits that, in case the claim of the appellant failed, the Appellant would step in the shoes of the ARCIL and proceed further. He submits that by not granting such relief a great prejudice will be caused to the Appellant. He submits that in the event that the property is disposed of by the ARCIL, irreparable loss would be caused to the Appellant, which cannot be compensated in monetary terms. 4. Mr. Kapadia, senior learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents submits that the learned Arbitrator has only considered the prayers which were pressed for at the ad-interim stage. He further submits that from the tenor of the Order it is clear that only two reliefs regarding supply of certain information were pressed in service and same have been considered by the learned Arbitrator. He, therefore, submits that no 3 interference is warranted in the present case. 5. Upon perusal of the impugned order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the learned Arbitrator, I find that the apprehension of the Appellant is totally misconceived useless. The learned Arbitrator, in the said order, has observed thus: “ He states that ARCIL cannot legally transfer or alienate the property without first taking possession under SARFAESI. He states that if action in this behalf is proposed by ARCIL and notice given to that effect, Claimants will inform the Respondents about the same. 6. It is thus clear that the apprehension in the mind of the Appellant is property being disposed off is without any basis, at least, at this stage. A statement has been recorded by the learned Arbitrator that in the event if any action is proposed by ARCIL, a notice would be given by the Respondents to that effect to the Appellant. Mr. Kapadia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents fairly states that the notice as recorded in the statement would be of a reasonable period. In that view of the matter and taking into consideration the fact that since the learned Arbitrator has not even considered the prayer which is now sought in the present application, I am not inclined to entertain the present appeal. As stated hereinabove, in the event if any proceedings are initiated by ARCIL under SARFAESI Act, immediate notice 4 thereof would be given to the Appellant to that effect. 7. Needless to state that if such a notice is received by the Appellant, the Appellant would be entitled to renew their request before the learned Arbitrator which would be considered in accordance with law. The Appeal is disposed accordingly. 8. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, the Notice of Motion does not survive and same is also disposed of. (B.R. GAVAI, J.)