vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.155 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.155 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.155 OF 2008 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.409 OF 2007 Mrs.Naheed Hafeez Quraishi (Patrawala) & Ors. ... Appellants V/s. M/s.Jeweltouch (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Gaurav Joshi a/w Hemang Raythatha for Appellants Mr.Haresh Jagtiani i/b Anil D’souza for Respondent No.1 Mr.Ramesh Jain for Resp. Nos.2 and 3 CORAM: S.B. MHASE & S.B. MHASE & S.B. MHASE & SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: JULY 14, 2008 JULY 14, 2008 JULY 14, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Admit. (NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.) : 2 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1274 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1274 OF 2008 NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1274 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO.155 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.155 OF 2008 APPEAL NO.155 OF 2008 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.409 OF 2007 Mrs.Naheed Hafeez Quraishi (Patrawala) & Ors. ... Appellants V/s. M/s.Jeweltouch (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Gaurav Joshi a/w Hemang Raythatha for Appellants Mr.Haresh Jagtiani i/b Anil D’souza for Respondent No.1 Mr.Ramesh Jain for Resp. Nos.2 and 3 CORAM: S.B. MHASE & S.B. MHASE & S.B. MHASE & SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: JULY 14, 2008 JULY 14, 2008 JULY 14, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard both sides. We have found the Memorandum of Understanding (for short, ‘MoU’) an incomplete document. Especially paragraph 8 onwards, at several places the scheme of the amount to be paid appears to have been prepared with amounts having not been filled in. Throughout the MoU, a copy of which has been produced in Court, where the amounts are required to be stated, blank spaces have been left out. The document of MoU is admittedly kept in an escrow. Therefore, prima facie the question is whether this is an agreement between the parties which can be said to be enforceable : 3 : at law. Therefore, this requires to be considered after hearing the parties and, hence, we have admitted the Appeal. We find that the respondents have been already injuncted by the learned Single Judge by issuing prayer clause (b) of Arbitration Petition No.409 of 2007. Therefore, we desire to continue the said prayer as against the appellants because preservation of the property between the parties till we finally hear the proceedings and dispose of the same on merits is necessary. Therefore, prayer clause (b) which has been granted by the learned Single Judge shall continue during the pendency of this appeal. The judgment is stayed except prayer clause (b) part of the judgment. We also find it appropriate that the respondents shall not create any third party interest in the litigation between the parties. Therefore, we direct that the respondents shall not transfer, sell or assign to any third party their rights, title and interest which arise with regard to the MoU in question. 2. Notice of Motion stands disposed of accordingly. (NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)