1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 77 OF 1992 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri J.N. Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Shri S.P.Daund, AGP for Respondent-State. ----- 1. This appeal from order is directed against the judgment and order passed by learned II Joint Civil Judge,(S.D.) Aurangabad, in Miscellaneous Application No. 187 of 1992 on 25.8.1992. Application was for interim injunction against present Respondent under Order 39 Rule 1(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Section 41(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 2 2. The Plaintiff-appellant is a registered contractor, carrying on construction work in Public Works Department and Irrigation Department. He had undertaken a contract of construction of public road between village Loni and Kansoor. The work was completed but according to the respondent-State amount of Rs. 2,47,896/= was due from the present appellant. Arbitration proceedings between the parties were going on and pending those proceedings appellant herein had filed said Misc. Application No.187 of 1992 in the court of II Joint Civil Judge, SD, Aurangabad seeking to restrain the Respondent-defendant State from recovering Rs.2,47,890/=. However, that application is dismissed on 25.8.1992 and hence this appeal from order against the same. 3 3. Shri J.N. Singh, Advocate, for the appellant has pointed out to me that in the meantime, arbitrator has passed an award and has held that it is the claimant appellant who is entitled to recover Rs.6,50,159/= with interest from the respondent- State. A copy of the said award dated 21.7.2004 is produced by y Advocate for the appellant which is taken on record and marked `X' for the purpose of identification. 4. Thus, it is clear that earlier claim by the Respondent-State against the present appellant is held not tenable. On the other hand the award is passed by the arbitrator against the respondent-State. 5. Learned A.G.P. Shri S.P. Daund also agrees to the position as above. In view of this agreed position in my opinion, there is no question of recovery of amount by Respondent- 4 State from the appellant. 6. In the light of award by arbitrator and position agreed by learned A.G.P., this appeal from order is disposed of accordingly. Date:03/08/2009 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/ao77.92