1 arbp532-10 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.532 OF 2010 ICICI Securities Ltd. ....Petitioner V/s. O.P. Roongta ....Respondent Mr.Gaurav Joshi with Mr.Mayur Bhojwani i/b M/s.M.K. Ambalal & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr.Palkhiwala with Mr.Sanghavi and Mr.Sachin Joshi i/b Mr.M.G. Mimani for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 27TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is a petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. The petitioner seeks an order directing the respondent to disclose his assets. The petitioner has also sought an order directing the respondent to furnish the security, failing which for an order of attachment of his properties and appointment of a Court Receiver in respect thereof. 3. It is true that an award in the sum of Rs.8,60,00,000/- was passed against the respondent. However a similar application was made being Arbitration Petition No.421 of 2009, which was disposed of by an order and judgment dated 12.8.2009. 4. The petition does not indicate any change in circumstance which warrant any further orders being passed. I am therefore not inclined 2 arbp532-10 to grant any reliefs in this fresh application which is for substantially the same reliefs as were sought in the earlier arbitration petition. 5. Mr.Joshi however, relied upon paragraph 6 of the judgment which reads as under :- “6. Even otherwise, on merits and in view of the statement and the following averments so made in the affidavit in reply that they are not willing to transfer any property, are sufficient at this stage to protect the interest and the apprehension of the petitioner. “31. ...... I categorically deny that I have tried or am trying to dispose of or alienate or transfer any of my assets or encumber the same with or without any intention as alleged or otherwise at all. It is more than a year and half since the disputes arose and I had enough time to dispose off my assets if I had wanted to do so and the petitioner should have enough evidence of the same if that were so, but the petitioner has no evidence at all and has resorted to bare and baseless allegations.” The parties sought a clarification of the order. The learned Judge by an order dated 3.12.2010 clarified the order as follows :- “2. The first portion of paragraph No.6 in the order dated 12th August, 2009, was based upon the averments so made referring to paragraph 31 of the affidavit-in-reply. In my view, no further clarification is necessary in the order. The parties are at liberty to take out appropriate application, if any.” It was contended that the respondent has dealt with his shares thereafter. This, it was contended, was in violation of the order dated 12.8.2009. 6. This petition however, does not proceed on the basis of the order dated 12.8.2009 being violated. If according to the petitioner, the respondent has violated the order by selling even a single share, it is always open to the petitioner to adopt appropriate proceedings in respect 3 arbp532-10 thereof. As the petition is not based on such a case, there is no warrant for passing any orders on this basis. 7. The arbitration petition is therefore, dismissed but with no order as to costs.