1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Arbitration Petition No.995 of 2009 J.M.Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner v/s. Jyotika M. Hadvani ..Respondent Rahul Mehta i/b. KMC Legal Venture for the Petitioner Nonefor the Respondent CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 25th March, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Mehta. By order dated 10.2.2010 interim relief has been granted in terms of prayer clause (e) of the petition. Today, the petition was taken up for final hearing as the respondent is absent though served. 2. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that the arbitration is over and the award would be passed very shortly and in any case within a period of one month. Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta took me through the 2 record and submitted that the respondent remained absent before the learned Arbitrator and that the respondent has not complied with the order by which she was asked to comply with interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a). Learned Advocate Mr. Mehta submitted that in this circumstances, this is a fit case where relief in terms of prayer clause (a) is to be granted. 3. Now that award is likely to be delivered, the petitioner would come to know the result of the award and therefore in my view, right at this juncture, it would not be proper to pass an order in terms of prayer clause (a), thereby asking the respondent to furnish surety. Undoubtedly, if the petitioners succeed before the Arbitrator, surely till such time they execute the award, they would have the right to institute appropriate proceeding under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act keeping in view the nature of the award. Hence, right now, I am not inclined to grant relief in terms of prayer clause (e). Needless to mention, if in the near future, if award is granted in favour of the petitioners, the petitioners will be able to move this court and action in terms of Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act and seek appropriate prayers so as to protect the interest of the petitioners. 3 4. In order to protect the interest of the petitioners, I am inclined to continue the ad-interim order already granted in favour of the petitioner on 10.2.2010 till 5.7.2010. 5. For the reasons mentioned aforesaid the following order is passed and petition is disposed of. ORDER i) Petition is disposed of. Request for relief in terms of prayer clause (a) is declined. At this stage, the interim relief granted in favour of he petitioners by Order dated 10.2.2010 to continue to run against the respondent till 1.7.2010, after the award is pronounced, depending upon the reliefs granted in the award. Petitioners are free to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. There shall be no order as to costs. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]