1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO.443 OF 2007 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.445 OF 2008 Blue Grille Food Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner. Vs. Mehool Narendra Bhuva ..Respondent. .... Ms. Saumya Srikrishna i/b M/s. Sunil & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Jain i/b M/s. L.D. Shah & Co. for the Respondent. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 12th February, 2008. P.C. : 1. In these proceedings under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 an order of injunction has been sought restraining the Respondent from interfering with the possession of the Petitioner or the business carried out by the Petitioner from the premises. A conducting agreement was entered into between the parties on 5th June, 2004. The term of the agreement is six years. The agreement contemplates the payment of compensation computed in accordance with the provisions of Annexure G thereto. 2 For the period between 1st June, 2004 until 31st May, 2007 a minimum guaranteed commission of Rs.1,20,000/- was payable. For the period of three years from 1st June, 2007 to 31st May, 2010 the minimum guaranteed commission was to be Rs.1,38,000/- per month. However, parties stipulated that in the event that the monthly aggregate gross receipts from the business exceed more than Rs. 12 lacs, then in addition to the minimum guaranteed commission, the Petitioner would pay to the Respondent an additional amount calculated at the rate of 7% of the monthly aggregated gross receipts. The conducting agreement has been terminated by the Respondent by a letter dated 8th October, 2007. In view of an arbitration clause contained in the conducting agreement, relief has been sought under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. On 2nd November, 2007 the following statement was made before the Learned Single Judge when the Petition came up for hearing : “i) That the respondent would forthwith replace / change the locks of the suit premises in question and handover keys thereof to the petitioner immediately after the locks are changed. ii) That the respondent would not disturb physical 3 occupation of the suit premises by the petitioner, however, subject to the respondent being allowed to enter the suit premises, inspect the accounts and the petitioner pays the sum as agreed under the subject Agreement to the respondent.” 2. Counsel appearing for the Respondent is willing to abide by the aforesaid statement and it is submitted that the Petition may be disposed of in terms thereof. However, on behalf of the Petitioner a Notice of Motion has been taken out (Notice of Motion 445 of 2008) seeking a direction to the Respondent to hand over the licences of the business to the Petitioner for the purpose of renewal. Counsel appearing for the Respondent has objected to the grant of any relief in the Notice of Motion. It has been submitted that the statement which has been made before this Court on 2nd November, 2007 has not been complied with and the licence fees that are due and payable have not been paid. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has stated on taking instructions that the agreement dated 5th June, 2004 was with the Respondent and his mother. The mother of the Respondent expired 4th February, 2006. Hence, it has been submitted on 4 behalf of the Petitioner that only 50% of the licence fees have been paid to the Respondent. The attention of the Court has been drawn by the Respondent to the fact that the Petitioner was communicated with the no objection of all the heirs of the deceased to the payment of the licence fees to the Respondent. This was confirmed by the Petitioner on 16th March, 2006. That being the position there was no justification on the part of the Petitioner not to pay the outstanding licence fees to the Respondent despite the clear direction issued by the Court on 2nd November, 2007. In the circumstances, it would neither be appropriate nor proper for the Court to entertain any application made in the Notice of Motion for the grant of relief in terms of the licences at the present stage. In the event that the statement contained in the order dated 2nd November, 2007 is duly complied with within a period of two weeks from today and all the licence fees up to date are paid, it would be open to the Petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings in regard to the licences of the business. The Arbitration Petition is accordingly disposed of by confirming the ad interim directions contained in the order dated 2nd November, 5 2007. In view of the disposal of the Arbitration Petition, Notice of Motion 445 of 2008 does not survive and stands disposed of.