IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBR, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.525 OF 2010 Between: Mahendra Singh Chordia. … Appellant And M/s.Siri Mahamart Trading Pvt. Ltd., rep. By its Chief Executive Officer and another … Respondents This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CMA.MP.No.1768 of 2010 in CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.525 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: - (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Goda Raghuram) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. At the stage of interlocutory application, CMA.MP.No.1768 of 2010, the counsel for the respective parties Sri R.A.Achuthanand and Smt.K.Sesharajyam, are agreed that having regard to the short compass of facts and issues in the substantive appeal, the appeal could itself be disposed of. We are, therefore, disposing of the appeal by this order and in the circumstances, no orders need be passed in the CMA.MP.No.1768 of 2010. The appeal is directed against an order, dated 28.04.2010, of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, in rejecting Arbitration O.P.No.2364 of 2009. The appellant herein filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”) for grant of interim orders for securing the amounts allegedly due from the respondents towards arrears of rent and amenities charges amounting to Rs.23,46,000/-. According to the averments in the arbitration O.P., the appellant leased out the property comprising Unit Nos.G1, 101, 201, 301, 401 and five upper floors admeasuring 10,883 square feet super built up area inclusive of common areas along with seven car parking spaces with the stilt floor with proportionate undivided share in the land admeasuring 290 square yards on the plot No.100/A bearing MCH.No.17-1-383/100/A in survey Nos.217, 218 and 219, Ward No.17, Block No.1, Vinaynagar Co-operative Housing Society, Saidabad to the respondents under a registered lease deed, dated 05.04.2007. The respondents also entered into an amenities agreement with the appellant on 15.11.2006, whereunder the respondents agreed to pay amenities charges of Rs.68,000/-, apart from Rs.1,02,000/- per month towards rent for the premises, in all amounting to Rs.1,70,000/- per month. Further the petitioner pleaded in the O.P., that the respondents fell into arrears of deposit of the rent and amenities amount in a total amount of Rs.23,46,000/-. According to the arbitration clause in the rental and amenities agreement, against the respondents they have filed the application under Section 9 seeking interim measures for securing the respondent’s liability of Rs.23,46,000/-. The respondents did not deny the liability in the response filed in the O.P. However, they put forward a creative contention that since the liability is not denied though they are not in a position to pay the amount, there was no arbitable dispute. Be that as it may. The court below rejected Arbitration O.P.No.2364 of 2009 rightly, on the ground that while the appellant seeks the relief of securing Rs.23,46,000/-, he failed to mention by what means he want the amount secured. The court below rightly rejected the argument that the respondents be directed to deposit the amount of Rs.23,46,000/- as such relief is alien to the scope of proceedings under Section 9 of the Act and that would amount to granting the very relief, which was or could be the subject matter of arbitral proceedings. Having realised the indefensibility of the application made before the court below, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that he now has information as to the manner in which the amount of Rs.23,46,000/- could be secured and that the appellant be permitted to file an appropriate application before the Court below in arbitration O.P.No.2364 of 2009 to sensitise the Court as to the manner in which an order could be passed for securing the amount of Rs.23,46,000/- The learned counsel for the appellant prays that the order of the Court dated 28.04.2010, be set aside so as to enable the petitioner to pursue the arbitration O.P., afresh by filing an application informing the Court below as to the manner in which the amount could be secured. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order, dated 28.04.2010, in Arbitration O.P.No.2364 of 209 passed by the Court of the Learned Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad while granting liberty to the appellant to file an appropriate application indicating the means or process by which the amount of Rs.23,46,000/- allegedly due from the respondents to him could be secured. Learned counsel for the respondents Smt.K.Sesharajyam states that the respondents should also be at liberty to contest the maintainability of an application under Section 9 of the Act, since an arbitration application itself is not maintainable, as the respondents admit their liability to the appellant under the terms of the lease agreement and the amenities agreement as contended by the respondents. In the facts and circumstances, the respondents shall also at liberty to urge before the court below, the maintainability of Arbitration O.P.No.2364 OF 2009. On appropriate applications being filed and after hearing the respective parties, the Learned Chief Judge, City Civil Courts or the appropriate Court may de novo adjudicate upon arbitration O.P.No.2364 of 2009. With the observation and directions above, the appeal is allowed and the order in arbitration O.P.No.2364 of 2009, dated 28.04.2010 of the Chief Judge, City civil Courts, is set aside remitting the matter to the said court for hearing afresh. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J 10th November 2010 lmv