1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 200 OF 2009 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3740 OF 2008 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 36 OF 2005 M/s. Gandhi Industrial Corporation. ... Appellants. (Orig. Respondents) V/s. Union of India & Anr. ... Respondents. (Orig. Petitioners) Mr. H.J. Thacker, Sr. Counsel with A.J. Dholakia i/b. M/s. Thakordas & Madgavkar for the Appellants. Mr. Y.S. Bhate for the Respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 23RD JUNE, 2009. P.C. :- We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 31st March 2009 vide which the learned Judge made the Notice of Motion absolute and directed the present Appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.39,90,822/- which was withdrawn by them from the Prothonotary and Senior Master within four weeks from the date of the order. 2 2. The basic and primary contention raised before us on behalf of the Appellant is that such an order could not have been passed by the learned Judge with reference to the provisions of Section 144 of the C.P.C. inasmuch as the Appellant has a larger claim against the Union of India and if it was not, Union of India could not have been directed to deposit remaining part of the claim and the order of the principle deposit could not have been made. 3. At the very outset, we make it clear that we are not going into the merits of allowing claims of the Appellant. The fact of the matter is that according to the order of the learned Single Judge in relation to the Award in question, the present Appellant has also filed another Appeal which is stated to be pending here. In the present Appeal we are concerned with the limited jurisdiction. We may notice that we are not impressed by the contention raised before us inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has exercised the power vested in the Court in consonance with the provision of Section 144 of the C.P.C. It cannot be disputed that as of today the Appellant has neither a decree nor any order by the Competent Court on which ground, the claim of the Appellant is made absolute. On the other hand, the Union of India has already succeeded in its claims and the amount deposited by it in furtherance of earlier orders of the Court and needs to be restored to the Union of India even under the order of the Supreme Court dated 12th October 2007. Furthermore, the learned Counsel appearing for the Union of 3 India has also stated that in the event the present Appellant succeeds in their substantive Appeal, they would deposit the amount with interest as directed by the Court of Competent Jurisdiction. In view of the above reasons, we do not see any ground to interfere in the impugned order. The Respondent would abide by their statements and the Appellant should deposit the amount in Court within four weeks from today. Appeal dismissed, subject to this statement. No costs. 4. The Notice of Motion does not survive for consideration. List the other Appeal on 14th July 2009, as per the Roster. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.