vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO.302 OF 2008 APPEAL (L) NO.302 OF 2008 APPEAL (L) NO.302 OF 2008 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.143 OF 2007 a/w NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2108 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2108 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2108 OF 2008 IN APPEAL (L) NO.302 OF 2008 APPEAL (L) NO.302 OF 2008 APPEAL (L) NO.302 OF 2008 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.143 OF 2007 Kavis Fashions Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant V/s. M/s.Dimple Enterprises & Ors. ... Respondents AND APPEAL NO.270 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.270 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.270 OF 2008 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.143 OF 2007 Kavis Fashions Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant V/s. M/s.Dimple Enterprises & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Janak Dwarkadas i/b Maneksha Sethan for Appellant Mr.Pravin Samdani i/b B.V. Zaveri for Respondents CORAM: S.B. MHASE & S.B. MHASE & S.B. MHASE & SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: JULY 8, 2008 JULY 8, 2008 JULY 8, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The impugned order in Appeal No.270 of 2008 states that no order of clarification is necessary in view of the order passed on 27.4.2007. This order of 27.4.2007 has also been challenged by the appellant in Appeal (Lodging) No.302 of 2008 in Arbitration Petition : 2 : No.143 of 2007. Since that appeal is not on Board today, by consent of the parties, the appeal and the Notice of Motion in that appeal are taken up on Board and heard. Notice of Motion No.2108 in Appeal (Lodging) No.302 of 2008 is for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. For the reasons set out in the affidavit in support of the Motion, the delay is condoned and the Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly. 2. The proceeding initiated by the appellant is under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996. Interim relief was refused by the learned Single Judge by order dated 27.4.2007 by making observations that the issues raised in the petition may be raised before the arbitral Tribunal. 3. Now Mr.Dwarkadas, learned Senior Counsel, makes a statement that his grievance will stand redressed if it is only clarified that whatever observations have been made by the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No.143 of 2007 while rejecting the interim relief, are prima facie observations and shall not be binding on the arbitral Tribunal and that the Arbitral Tribunal shall not be influenced by the said findings and the observations. The learned counsel for the respondents states that he has no objection. Therefore, it is clarified that whatever the observations made by : 3 : the learned Single Judge in Arbitration Petition No.143 of 2007 on merits and the findings recorded therein shall not be taken into consideration by the arbitral Tribunal. More specifically, the arbitral Tribunal shall not be influenced by those observations and every point is kept open for the arbitral Tribunal to consider independently on merits. 4. Appeal (Lodging) No.302 of 2008 is disposed of accordingly. 5. In view of the Appeal (lodging) No.302 being disposed of, appeal No.270 of 2008 is not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant in that appeal. Therefore, the appeal No.270 of 2008 is allowed to be withdrawn and dismissed as such. (NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)