1 34.arbpl.1009.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION skt ARBITRATION PETITION (LODGING) NO. 1009 OF 2010 Polestar Maritime Ltd. ... Petitioner Vs. Naftogaz India Pvt. Ltd. ... Respondents ...... Mr.Vishal Sheth i/by Bimal Rajasekhar for the Petitioner. Mr.Siddharth Thatte i/by Mr.Sachin Patil for Respondent No.1 Mr.Prakash Shinde a/w. Mr.Kishor P. i/by M/s.M.Dhruve & Partners for Respondent No.2. ...... CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : OCTOBER 11th, 2010. P.C. 1 These are the petitions under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 2 According to the Petitioner, the Respondents have admitted its liability in the sum of over Rs.3.81 crores. Respondent No.1 denied the same and in fact claims the amount of over Rs.5 crores from the Petitioner. Respondent No.2 is the ONGC. A garnishee order is sought against Respondent No.2. 2 34.arbpl.1009.10.sxw 3 I would presume that the Petitioner has established a prima facie case on merits. At the highest, the Petitioner would be entitled to an interim order in terms of the ad-interim order dated 15th September 2010. By said order, Respondent No.2 was directed to maintain a balance to the extent of Rs.3.81 crores in respect of the dues of Respondent No.1, if any and subject to a charge that the State Bank of India may have. The documents on record clearly contain admissions by Respondent No.1. The claim of Respondent No.1 is not only not admitted by the Petitioner but it is yet to be established. In the circumstances, the Petitioner’s claim requires some protection. By an ad-interim order dated 15th September 2010, I have directed Respondent No.2 to maintain a balance, if any, to the extent of Rs.3.81 crores, subject to a charge that the State Bank of India may have. In my opinion, this is adequate protection in the facts and circumstances of this case. The Petitioner has several large projects in India with various companies of an agreegate value of Rs.2399 crores. 4 In these circumstances, the petition is disposed of by the following order : (i) The petition is disposed of in terms of the ad-interim order passed on 15th September 2010. 3 34.arbpl.1009.10.sxw (ii) The Petitioner and Respondent No.1 have agreed to refer all their disputes and differences to arbitration in accordance of the arbitration clause in the agreement. They have undertaken to take appropriate steps in that regard. The undertakings are accepted. 5 The petitions are accordingly disposed of.