... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA. WRIT PETITION NO.195 OF 2009 M/s Unique Equipments, a Partnership Firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, having its principal place of business-cum-factory/Workshop at Z-15, Mormugao Industrial Area, Off Airport road, Chicalim, Goa, represented herein by its partner, Shri Sachitanand Kamat, s/o Krishnanath Kamat, aged 35 years, businessman, married, Indian National, resident of House No.267, Vizor, Panchawadi, Goa. … Petitioner v e r s u s 1. Rajesh Kumar Gopinath, s/o Shri Gopinath Kadakkat, aged 33 years, businessman, bachelor, Indian National, resident of Flat No.B-1, Triveni Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Adarsh Nagar, Airport road, Chicalim, Goa. 2. M/s Target Innovations, a proprietary concern, having its office at 13, Chase International, P.E. Jose Vaz road, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa 403 802 ... 2 ... represented herein by its Proprietor, Rajesh Kumar Gopinath, s/o Shri Gopinath Kadakkat, aged 33 years, businessman, bachelor, Indian National, resident of Flat No.B-1, Triveni Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Adarsh Nagar, Airport road, Chicalim, Goa. … Respondents Mr. P. Jauhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V. A. Lawande, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM: SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE: 29TH APRIL, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 2. The petitioner and the respondent were partners. The dispute between them commenced from 02.02.2009 when the petitioner went to the web site which showed that the respondent who was then his partner was carrying on the business of manufacturing goods of the partnership firm. The petitioner has ... 3 ... sought restraint upon such manufacture. The petitioner issued legal notice on 04.02.2009 restraining the respondent from carrying on such manufacture. 3. The respondent issued notice of dissolution under section 43 (b) of the Indian Partnership Act on 11.02.2009. The petitioner received the notice on 14.02.2009. The partnership firm stood dissolved on 14.02.2009. Prior to the notice of dissolution, the respondent filed petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act for ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining manufacture of the same goods by the respondent who was then the partner of the firm which was then a going concern. 4. The Arbitration Application was fixed on 18.02.2009 which was the returnable date of the application and on which date the applicant again came to be heard. The respondent herein was represented. The petitioner asked for extension of the ex-parte relief. The ex-parte relief was not ... 4 ... extended. The application was stood over for orders and also for reply of another application taken up by the petitioner which is stated to be an application for appointment of a Receiver. 5. Thereafter on 25.02.2009, the petitioner gave notice to the respondent to appoint an Arbitrator under section 21 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner accordingly evinced his intention of proceeding in Arbitration. This notice has been received by the respondent no.26.02.2009. On 26.02.2009 the application for appointment of Receiver was taken up. Rejoinder is shown to have been filed by the petitioner with the copies of the documents to the application for ad-interim injunction which was already heard on 18.02.2009. The order again came to be reserved on that application as it was not ready. The matter was fixed on 12.03.2009. On 12.03.2009, the ad-interim application was dismissed and the ad-interim relief was discharged. The respondent filed affidavit-in- sur-rejoinder to the application for ad-interim ... 5 ... injunction. The interim application was stood over for final arguments on 31.03.2009. 6. On 31.09.2009, the interim application was to be heard. The petitioner's Advocate submits that this writ petition was filed against the order dated 12.03.2009. The final arguments were reserved and stood over to 21.04.2009 and that day the reply to the application for appointment of Receiver was filed by the respondent. On 21.04.2009, the petitioner applied for time. 7. It is seen that the initial exparte ad- interim injunction has been discharged after the respondent was heard on merits. Even before it was discharged, the ad-interim injunction was not extended. It is also seen that the main ad-interim injunction has been on board of the Judge from 31.03.2009. That has not been argued. Affidavits were filed by the parties. An appeal against that order was stated to have been filed. The Advocate for the petitioner states that that is by way of this ... 6 ... Writ petition. The Writ petition may be treated as an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration Act. However, it is seen that when all the parties have filed affidavits and when the learned Judge has kept the matter on board and when the matter has been taken up and called on two occasions for arguments, the parties must argue such matter in that Court alone. There is no cause of interference in this matter. The ad-interim injunction has not been extended even prior to the discharge of the initial ad-interim relief. Consequently the writ petition is misconceived. Hence it is rejected. Rule discharged. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. lh/.