1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.O.No.517/2010 AND M.C.A.ST.NO.7028/2010 IN A.A.ST.No.2877/2010 Shri Rohit Dilipbhai Popat -: VERSUS :- Vijay Ramnarayan Sharma and another. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 23, 2010. Heard Shri A.G. Gharote, learned counsel for applicant and Shri S.A. Mohta, learned counsel for non- applicants. Prayer is to condone delay of 7 days in filing M.C.A.St. for restoration. The reason given for condonation of delay are supported by personal affidavit of Advocate, hence though Shri Mohta, learned counsel for non-applicant is serious opposing the condonation of delay, delay is condoned. Office to Register the M.C.A. Civil Application stands disposed of. ........... 2 M.C.A.St.No.7028/2010. For the reasons already recorded while condoning delay, prayers made in M.C.A. are granted and Arbitration Appeal No. (St) 2877/2010 is restored back to file. Misc. Civil Application stands disposed of. ........... Arbitration Appeal No.(St) No.2877/2010. With consent of the parties the Arbitration Appeal is taken up for final disposal. Shri Gharote, learned counsel for appellant states that the applicant had 50% share in the profits and business of the Firm. He further points out that the respondents no. 1 and 2 respectively had 30% an 20% share. In accordance with the law, the business of Firm has been brought to an end and after that accounts are not settled and the dispute is going on, hence, with a view to safeguard his interest the appellant filed application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act before the learned Principal District Judge, Amravati and sought appointment of receiver and also in alternative a restraining order against the non-applicants from running the business of partnership Firm in the firms name. He invites attention to Section 46 of the Indian 3 Partnership Act to substantiate his contentions. His stand is, under an impression that there are no assets of Firm, application has been rejected. His argument is, between 2005 to 2008 the Firm has established reputation and business also and that reason given in impugned order is not proper. Shri Mohta, learned counsel for respondents relies upon the reasons given in the impugned order to support it. With the assistance of both the learned counsel, I have perused the impugned order. It is apparent that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are according to the appellant, carrying on the business. The appellant/applicant therefore could have prayed for appropriate relief of interim nature before the lower Court. Law on the point is settled in judgment in case of Adhunik Steels Ltd. vs. Orissa Manganese and Minerals Pvt. Ltd., reported at AIR 2007 SC 2569. I find nothing wrong with the appreciation of controversy by the learned Principal District Judge, Amravati. However, with liberty to the appellant to move appropriate application with appropriate prayers, Arbitration Appeal is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.