*1* arbp.208.09.nms.3758.09.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.208 OF 2009 DSL Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.. ..Petitioner -Versus- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.. ..Respondent .......... Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.Chirag Balsara, Ms.Pooja Patil, Ms.Swati Deshpande, Mr.Rakesh Misar i/b S.Mahomedbhai and Company, for the Petitioner. Mr.Nagendra Rai, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.Prashant Chavan, Mr.Chandra Prakash, Mr.Varun Agarwal, Mr.Sudhir Kumar, i/b Khare Legal Chambers for the Respondent. .......... CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 14th September, 2010. P.C. 1 The Petitioner seeks possession of the material which is lying with the Respondent. 2 The reliefs claimed in this petition if granted would virtually amount to passing an award in the Petitioner’s favour and executing the same at this stage. 3 Firstly, it must be noted that though an Arbitrator was appointed pursuant to the Petitioner’s application under Section 11, the order and judgment has been stayed by the Supreme Court. Thus, in the event of the Supreme Court allowing the Special Leave Petition, it would be impossible to restore the status-quo ante. 4 Reliance was placed on the affidavit dated 27.08.2009 in which the Respondent stated that the Petitioner should be directed to collect the material from the respective circles at the earliest failing which *2* arbp.208.09.nms.3758.09.sxw the appropriate orders for the storage, costs and transportation be made. Three interim orders were passed in this petition on 19.06.2009, 22.06.2009 and 14.07.2009. The effect of these orders was that the Respondent was to dismantle the equipment and store the same at their warehouse at Nashik. The affidavit was made pursuant to the directions passed in these orders. I do not read the affidavit to mean that the Respondent had agreed to the Petitioner not merely keeping/storing the same but also appropriating the same unconditionally. The Petitioner has not agreed to store the material at it’s premises. 5 I am not inclined to pass an order directing the Respondent to handover the equipment although in the award passed in the earlier arbitration reference it was observed that upon expiry of the lease the Petitioner would have been entitled to possession of the equipment. The effect of the earlier proceedings and the effect of the Petitioner not having claimed alternate reliefs in the earlier proceedings, requires consideration either before the Arbitrator if the order appointing the Arbitrator is upheld or in appropriate proceedings. Before the determination thereof, I am not inclined to grant an interim order in the nature of final reliefs. All other contentions including as to which party is liable for the storage costs or damages, if any, are obviously kept open. 6 In the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not see any warrant for directing the Respondent to secure the claim at this stage. There is nothing to suggest that the Respondent will not honour an award if made against it or that the Respondent will act mala-fide to defeat any such award if made against it. 7 The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. - *3* arbp.208.09.nms.3758.09.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3758 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.208 OF 2009 DSL Enterprises Pvt.Ltd.. ..Petitioner -Versus- Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd.. ..Respondent .......... Mr.S.U.Kamdar, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.Chirag Balsara, Ms.Pooja Patil, Ms.Swati Deshpande, Mr.Rakesh Misar i/b S.Mahomedbhai and Company, for the Petitioner. Mr.Nagendra Rai, Senior Counsel a/w Mr.Prashant Chavan, Mr.Chandra Prakash, Mr.Varun Agarwal, Mr.Sudhir Kumar, i/b Khare Legal Chambers for the Respondent. .......... CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 14th September, 2010. P.C. 1 In view of the order passed today disposing of the Arbitration Petition No.208/2009, the prayer (a) does not require any consideration. 2 The Petitioner in any event is not willing to store the material. The prayer (b) regarding the costs incurred in dismantling and stacking of the LTLMS panels cannot be granted in this Notice of Motion. The Respondent is at liberty to adopt the appropriate proceedings for the same. 3 The Notice of Motion is, accordingly, disposed of. -