AJN 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.418 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4515 OF 2007 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.470 OF 2002 Lalitkumar V. Sanghavi .... Appellant Vs. Dharamdas V. Sanghavi & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Snehal Shah i/b Mr. Yatin Shah for the appellant. Mr. Shailesh Shah i/b Mr. K.P. Anilkumar for respondent 1. CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS RESERVED : 3RD DECEMBER, 2008. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED : 10TH DECEMBER, 2008. P.C. :- 1. Original petitioner in Arbitration Petition No.470 of 2002 has challenged in this appeal order dated 13/2/2008 passed by learned Single Judge of this court (V.C. Daga, J.) disposing of the notice of AJN 2 motion taken out by respondent 1 praying that (a) the Court Receiver High Court, Bombay appointed as Receiver as per order dated 31/10/2002 made by His Lordship Mr. Justice Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud in respect of properties described in Ex-A to the Petition including Flat No.312, “B” Wing, 3rd floor, Vallabh Bhavan, Bapubhai Vashi Road, Vile Parle (West), Mumbai – 400 056, be discharged and the Court Receiver be further directed to hand over possession of the same to respondent 1 and (b) that the Court Receiver, High Court, Mumbai be directed to refund to respondent 1 the royalty amounts deposited by respondent 1. 2. The appellant and the respondents are related. Disputes arose between them over their business. It is not necessary to go into the nature of the dispute at this stage. The case of the appellant is that the partnership firm stood dissolved on and from 14/2/2002 and the appellant invoked arbitration clause of the partnership agreement. The appellant filed Petition No.470 of 2002 under Section 9 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the said Act”) for interim relief. On 31/10/2002, the Court Receiver was appointed as receiver of the assets of the partnership. The order appointing Court Receiver was confirmed in AJN 3 appeal and the special leave petition was dismissed. By a communication dated 29/10/2007, the arbitral tribunal stated that though the proceedings were pending from June, 2003 and meetings were convened between June, 2004 and 11/4/2007, the claimant took no interest in the matter. The arbitral tribunal, therefore, terminated the arbitral proceedings and all interim orders stood vacated. By order dated 7/2/2008, learned Single Judge (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) dismissed Arbitration Petition No.79 of 2008 observing that the object of an interim measure of protection under Section 9 of the said Act is to enable the court to pass an appropriate order in aid of arbitral proceedings. He further observed that the arbitral tribunal having come to the conclusion that the appellant/petitioner had not taken any interest to pursue the arbitral proceedings, the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 9 of the said Act was not warranted. The said order was challenged in Appeal No.401 of 2008. The said appeal was disposed of by us by a reasoned order today i.e. on 10/12/2008 observing that in the circumstances of the case, no interference was warranted with the impugned judgment and order. We took note of the fact that the appellant has applied for constitution of new arbitral tribunal. We have kept the contentions of the parties AJN 4 open. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. We have observed that it would be open for the appellant to renew his prayer for appointment of Court Receiver if the new tribunal is constituted. It appears that after learned Single Judge dismissed Arbitration Petition No.79 of 2008 by his order dated 7/2/2008, by the order impugned in this appeal, learned Single Judge (V.C. Daga, J.) disposed of Notice of Motion No.4515 of 2007 observing that the interim relief is granted to protect the suit property and it culminates in the final order and that since the substantive proceedings (arbitral proceedings) had been dismissed, the interim order cannot survive. He, therefore, discharged the Court Receiver by making the notice of motion absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) of the notice of motion. The said order is challenged in this appeal. 3. In view of the fact that we have dismissed the appeal carried from the order dated 7/2/2002 passed by learned Single Judge (Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) dismissing Arbitration Petition No.79 of 2008, the present appeal does not survive and is disposed of accordingly. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] AJN 5 [K.K. TATED, J.]