1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE APPEAL NO.28 OF 2005 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO.449 OF 2002 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Appellant vs. Montage Securities Ltd. & ors. Respondents Mr.M.P. Rao i/b. Mr.S.M.Vidyarthi for the appellant. Mr.H.H.Trivedi for the respondent no.1. CORAM : R. M. LODHA & J.P. DEVADHAR,JJ. DATED : 20th June 2005 P.C. Heard Mr.M.P.Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.H.H.Trivedi, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. We also perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 2. Clauses 6 and 7 of the Contract between the parties were considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge observed that the arbitration clause 6 would come in operation only if the difference arose between the parties about the quantum and there was no dispute about the liability by the underwriters. The view seems to be justified on bare reading of clause 6. The jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal is founded 2 if there was no dispute of its liability by the underwriters and the difference related to the quantum to be paid by the underwriters under the policy. The fact that there was no challenge to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal would show that there was no challenge to its liability by the underwriters and the only dispute before the Arbitral Tribunal was with regard to the quantum to be paid under the policy. 3. The learned Single Judge was of the view that the question of quantum is a question of fact and the finding of fact recorded by the majority with regard to the quantum does not suffer from any infirmity. We find nothing wrong in the view of the learned Single Judge. 4. No case for interference in the impugned order is made out. 5. Appeal is dismissed in limine. (R.M. (R.M. (R.M. LODHA,J.) LODHA,J.) LODHA,J.) (J.P. (J.P. (J.P. DEVADHAR,J.) DEVADHAR,J.) DEVADHAR,J.)