1 arbp53-11 vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.53 OF 2011 Urmilaben M. Dhimmer ....Petitioner V/s. Dhayabhai S. Dhimmer ....Respondent Mr.Sanjay Bhatia with Ms.Rekha Shinde for the Petitioner. Mr.R.V. Govilkar for the Respondent. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 3RD AUGUST, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is a petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2. According to the petitioner, the parties herein carried on business on the terms and conditions contained in the partnership deed dated 30.3.1987. According to the respondent, this deed was amended by a deed dated 1.4.1989 and thereafter, the parties carried on business under a deed of partnership dated 7.4.1992. Thus the disputes between the parties would include the question as to which of the deeds is binding between the parties. It is not necessary to consider the rival contentions, as both the parties have agreed to refer all the disputes between them including the dispute as to which of the 2 arbp53-11 three deeds is binding between them to the sole arbitration of Mr.Rajeev L. Patil, an advocate of this Court. Both counsel state that they have authority on behalf of their respective clients in this regard. 3. There remains the question of interim reliefs. Even under the alleged deed of partnership dated 7.4.1992, the petitioner has a 50% share in the profits and losses of the firm subject to the provisions for the distribution of the profits as stipulated in clause 7 thereof. It is necessary therefore, to protect the rights and interests of both the parties. 4. I am not inclined to allow either of the parties to carry on the business to the exclusion of the other, without ascertaining the fair market value for the benefit of running the business. The appointment of a Court Receiver and the invitation of third parties to bid for the agency of the Court Receiver would protect the interests of both the parties. I appreciate that both the parties would require the income from the business. The order I propose passing addresses both these issues. 5. In the circumstances, pending the making of an award and for a period of twelve weeks thereafter, the Court Receiver is appointed as the receiver of all the assets of the firm. The Court Receiver shall appoint an agent after inviting bids in the usual manner. The parties shall be at liberty to bid for the agency of the Court Receiver either by 3 arbp53-11 themselves or through their nominee/s. In the event of the respondent’s bid matching the highest bid, the respondent shall be appointed as an agent of the Court Receiver. It is agreed that the application for withdrawal of the royalty shall be made before the learned arbitrator under section 17 of the said Act. Till the Court Receiver appoints an agent, the respondent shall continue to carry on the business of the firm as an agent of the Court Receiver and subject to the respondent agreeing to pay royalty from the date hereof till the date of the appointment of the agent, whether or not the respondent is appointed as an agent of the Court Receiver. The arbitration petition is accordingly disposed of.