1 Arbp.18.11 Kambli IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.18 OF 2011 ... M/s.Nikita Builders & Developers ...Petitioner v/s. Mr.Ali Akbar Jafari ...Respondent ... Mr.S.G.Anay, Sr.Advocate with Mr.L.M.Acharya i/b Ranvir Shekhawat for the Petitioner. Mr.P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate i/b Mr.Tejas Dande and Mr.Kedar Dhangade for Respondent. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh J. DATED: 1st July, 2011 P.C.: It is common ground that the arbitral tribunal consisting of two named arbitrators and third presiding arbitrator was constituted and the arbitral tribunal has made an order dated 12-6-2010 holding “ that the date of arbitration proceeding commenced without the intervention of the court and on that point of time the firm was not registered. Therefore, we allow the application holding that there is bar of section 69 of Partnership Act and dismiss the claim petition filed by the 2 Arbp.18.11 claimant.” In view of dismissal of the claim filed by the Petitioner, the arbitration clause will come to an end. It is, however, pointed out that there is an appeal filed against the order of the arbitral tribunal and that appeal is still pending. I have also been informed that the order dated 12-6-2010 has been stayed. But unless and until that order is set aside, the arbitral proceeding can not revive. The question of substitution of arbitrator or appoint of new arbitrator will arise only in the event the order dated 12-6-2010 dismissing the claim of the petitioner is set aside. 2. In this view of the matter, therefore, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to take steps, if so required for reconstitution of the arbitral tribunal, in case the order dated 12-6-2010 is set aside. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) 3 Arbp.18.11 4 Arbp.18.11