ARBP1213-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1213 OF 2010 APA Infraventure Pvt Ltd & Anr .. Petitioner Versus Vrindavan Co-operative Housing Society & Ors .. Respondents Mr.Y.A.Sharma i/by Ganesh & Co for the petitioner. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 2nd February 2011 P.C. . Heard Mr.Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2 The petitioner relies on the letter dated 15th March 2008 and the MOU between the petitioner and the respondent dated 17th June 2008 and contends that the petitioner has a right in the immovable property and therefore until the Arbitral Tribunal decides as to whether the termination of the MOU is justified or not so also it is valid and legal, appropriate interim measures be granted and particularly to prevent alienation and transfer of the immovable property by the society. ARBP1213-10 2 3 He submits that the observations at the ad-interim stage that there is delay in approaching this Court are based on the contents of the petition and some annexures but in the further affidavit it has been pointed out by annexing letters dated 21st July 2010 that the society has not acted upon the termination and has rather withdrawn it. For all these reasons and when the petitioner has incurred huge expenditure towards stamp duty/registration, this Court should grant the interim measures as prayed. 4 It is not possible to accept this contention. Prima facie, the petitioner made an offer to the society on 15th March 2008 which offer was considered at the General Body Meeting of the society and thereafter the MOU has been executed. It is not disputed that the society itself has constructed the building on the land belonging to MHADA. The land does not belong to the society and is yet to be conveyed to it by MHADA. The petitioner is said to have incurred some expenses in obtaining the conveyance. The agreement is clear in asmuch as the petitioner was to obtain the conveyance and thereafter start the construction/re-development work. The construction was to be completed in terms of the understanding between parties. The conveyance itself is a condition which is to be fulfilled and thereafter further steps are required to be undertaken. The ARBP1213-10 3 petitioner has set out in the petition that the conveyance could not be obtained as no member or office bearer of respondent No.1-Society came to MHADA for execution of conveyance. There are other allegations thereafter made. 5 Prima facie, it is difficult to accept that any purported interest or right in the property is created in favour of the petitioner who is merely to develop the property belonging to the society after the land is conveyed to the society. The land itself is not conveyed and therefore prima facie the right of the petitioner therein does not arise. The other aspect is about incurring expenses for obtaining the conveyance and incidental matters. That is the money claim which the petitioner can very well raise before the Arbitral Tribunal and seek an appropriate award. For the reasons that have persuaded the learned single Judge to deny ad-interim relief and these additional reasons, I find no substance in the petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No orders as to costs. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)