*1* 22-125-10 srj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPLICATION NO. 125 OF 2010 M/s. Sita Premises Limited ..Applicant. v/s. Ms. Jyoti S. Trevadia ..Respondent. Mr. Mahesh Menon i/b. Mahesh Menon & co., for the Applicant. None for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 24 th JANUARY, 2011. P.C. :- 1 This is an application under section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2 The Respondent held shares in the Applicant company. By virtue thereof, the Respondents are entitled to occupy specified premises. The rights of the parties are governed by the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Applicant. Article 42 contains the Arbitration Agreement. 3 There are several disputes and differences between the parties. The Applicant has claimed that the Respondent is in arrears of the monthly outgoings and, therefore, the Applicant is entitled to forfeit the shares, cancel the car parking space to the Respondents and to recover the arrears. *2* 22-125-10 4 There is no affidavit in reply on record. However, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant fairly states that a notarized copy of an affidavit in reply has been served upon him. I did not permit time to the Applicant to file a rejoinder, considering the view that I have taken and also in view of the fact that the affidavit in reply does not appear to have been filed in this court. Despite the same, I have considered the affidavit in reply which is taken on record and marked as “X”. 5 The Respondent has contended, inter alia, that the Applicant is responsible for carrying out several repairs in respect of the premises and to reimburse the cost of the repairs carried out by them. In fact, the Respondent has filed a suit. The Applicant’s application under section 8 was allowed. An appeal against this order is pending in this Court. 6 It is not necessary to express any opinion on the merits of the disputes between the parties. It is for the Arbitrator to decide the same. In fact, in paragraph 8 of the said affidavit in reply, it is stated that the Respondent and her family members and relatives are not against going for Arbitration but are opposing the application on the ground that the same cannot be done in isolation. This is with reference to the fact that the other relatives of the Respondents also hold shares in the Applicant company and by virtue thereof occupy premises in the same property. 7 Similarly, applications under section 11 have been filed by Applicant in respect of the other parties/relatives of the Applicant. The above grievance that the reference to arbitration cannot be considered in isolation is therefore taken care of. I have passed similar orders in all those applications as well. *3* 22-125-10 8 Arbitration application is disposed of by appointing Mr. Justice A.V.Savant-former Judge of this Court and former Chief Justice of the High Court of Kerala, as a sole arbitrator.