SM 1 3.ao.1366.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1366 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1781 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1366 OF 2011 Laddha Broterhs Films Pvt. Ltd. ....Appellant. Versus M/s. Bhagyashree Enterprises and Entertainment Ltd. and others ....Respondents. ____________ Mrs. Sunanda r. Kumbhat with Surana Pratap for the Appellant. Mr. P. S. Gidwani for the Respondent No. 1. CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 15, 2011. P.C.: The appellant has approached this Court raising exception to the order dated 27th September, 2011 of rejection of notice of motion. The defendant has prayed for stay of the proceedings of S.C.Suit No. 4683 of 2006 during the pendency and disposal of the proceedings of an Appeal presented before the High Court arising out of the arbitral award. 2. The substantive prayers made in the plaint are thus: (a) It be declared by this Hon'ble Court that the Defendant Nos. 1 have no right, title, interest or claim in respect of the film tiled DR BABSAHEB AMBEDKAR under Agreement dated 23rd November, 2000 nor Defendant Nos. 1 have any claim against the Plaintiffs under the said Agreement or otherwise. (b) It be further declared by this Hon'bel Court that the letters dated 25th February, 2006 Exhibit “G” SM 2 3.ao.1366.11 and 25th September, 2006 Exhibit “H” hereto issued by the Defendant Nos. 2 are bad in law, illegal, void ab-initio and accordingly they are set aside. (c) That the Defendants, their servants, agents, of ficers, representatives be representatives be restrained by an order and permanent injunction of this Hon'ble Court from implementing, enforcing and/or acting upon any of the directions contained in the said letters dt. 25th February, 2006 Ex.”G” and 25th September, 2006 Ex.”H” to the plaint and/or acting upon the same in any manner whatsoever nature. 3. It is the contention of the appellant/original defendant that the arbitral proceedings are pending at the appellate stage before this High Court relating to the subject matter of the suit and as such, the City Civil Court cannot be permitted to deal with the issues which are the subject matter of the previously instituted proceedings. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the claim arising in the arbitral proceedings is in relation to the same transaction in respect of which the suit is presented before the City Civil Court. The issue cannot be permitted to be canvased before two different fora. The application of grant of stay of the suits is governed by Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads thus: “Section 10. Stay of Suit. No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in [India] having jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of [India] established or continued by [the Central SM 3 3.ao.1366.11 Government] and having like jurisdiction, or before [the Supreme Court].” 4. It is not demonstrated that the matter in issue involved in the suit is, also, directly and substantially an issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. It is contended that the matter in issue in the suit is not the directly and substantially in issue in the arbitral proceedings presented before the City Civil Court. The arbitral proceedings relate to an Award of claim of damages to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) whereas larger relief is claimed in the suit seeking a decree of injunction and certain other reliefs. Thus, the matter in the issue in the suit is not directly and substantially in issue in the proceedings before the Arbitral Tribunal. 5. In this view of the matter, the Trial Court is, perfectly, justified in refusing to grant indulgence in the matter. It is informed that recording of the evidence in the suit presented before the Judge, City Civil Court is in progress and at this stage, there is no warrant to stay the proceedings. For the reasons recorded above, I am of the opinion that the appeal from order does not call for any interference and stands dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the appeal from order, pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of. (R. M. BORDE, J.)