IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA APPEAL UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO. 1 OF 2008 TULIP HOTELS PVT. LTD. AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus TRADE WINGS LTD. AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr.Hiroo Advani with Mr. P. S. Rao, with Mr. Dinesh Pednekar, with Mr. Asif Lampwala, Advocates for the appellants. Mr. H. M. Jagtiani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anil D'Souza, with Mr. Sidhesh Bhole with Mr.M. Prabhudessai, Advocates for the respondents. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 23rd August, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. H. Advani, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. H. Jagtiani, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents. 2. In this appeal preferred against an order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the limited relief sought by the appellants is appointment of receiver in respect of the hotel Bogmalo Beach Resort. The relief of the receivership is sought by the appellants in view of the order dated 23.9.2010 passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 9105 of 2010 preferred by the appellants herein. According to the appellants, the receiver has to be appointed in respect of Bogmalo Beach Resort on account of subsequent events which have occurred after passing of the impugned orders dated 26.11.2007 and 17.1.2008 passed by the District Court in Arbitration Application no. 3/2007. In support of the application, the appellants have produced on record several documents. In reply thereto, the respondents have also produced several documents. No doubt this Court is not denuded of the jurisdiction to consider the appointment of the receiver as sought by the appellants but considering the fact that the materials in support of the application have been placed by the appellants for the first time which were not placed before the District Court and considering that the relief of appointment of receiver was not pressed before the District Court. I am of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper to permit the appellants to file an application under Section 9 of the Act before the District Court to seek relief of appointment of receiver in respect of Bogmalo Beach Resort. 3. Mr. Jagtiani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that respondents would not raise objection before the District Court on the ground that second application under Section 9 of the Act is not maintainable at the instance of the appellants. 4. In view of the statement made by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, I am of the considered opinion that no prejudice would be caused to the appellants, if the appellants are permitted before the District Court to seek the relief of appointment of receiver. 5. In the event the appellants choose to file an application under Section 9 of the Act seeking appointment of the receiver in respect of Bogmalo Beach Resort, the District Court shall deal with the same on its own merits after considering all the objections on behalf of the respondents thereto. It is made clear that said application shall not be dismissed on the ground that second application under Section 9 of the Act is not maintainable under the Act. In case, such an application is filed, District Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the application expeditiously having regard to the fact that nature of the relief sought by the appellants. 6. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn