-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 387 OF 2009 Risk Design & Advertising Ltd. ... Appellant versus Y.T. Entertainment Ltd. and others ...Respondents Mr.Vineet Naik, instructed by Anuja Jhunjhunwala, for the appellant. Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate, with Mr. H.N. Thakore, instructed by M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates, for respondent No.1. WITH APPEAL NO. 399 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 387 OF 2009 Azam Khan ... Appellant versus Y.T. Entertainment Ltd. and others ...Respondents Mr. V.R. Dhond, instructed by Madhu Chaudhary, for the appellant. Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate, with Mr. H.N. Thakore, instructed by M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates, for respondent No.1. WITH APPEAL NO. 400 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 387 OF 2009 One More Thought Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. ... Appellant versus Y.T. Entertainment Ltd. and others ...Respondents -2- Mr.Vineet Naik, instructed by M/s. Naik, Naik & Company, for the appellant. Mr. D.D. Madon, Senior Advocate, with Mr. H.N. Thakore, instructed by M/s. Thakore Jariwala & Associates, for respondent No.1. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.V. MORE, JJ. DATE: DECEMBER 17, 2009. P.C. These appeals are directed against the order dated 6th August, 2009, passed by the learned single Judge under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is not in dispute that the dispute is arbitrable and the Court is informed that the Arbitrator is already appointed. In view of the same, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in each of these appeals submitted that the time to furnish security be extended for a period of one month from today as ordered by the learned single Judge so that in the meanwhile the appellants in each appeals can file appropriate applications before the Arbitrator for modification/variation of the interim protection or may come out with appropriate suggestion before the Arbitrator. It is submitted that till the Arbitrator decides such applications which may be preferred by the appellants, they will not transfer or alienate their assets in any manner and will maintain status quo prevailing as of today in connection with the assets in question. 2. Mr. Madon, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 has submitted that he has no objection if time to furnish security is extended for a -3- limited period. 3. Considering the aforesaid aspect, we grant permission to the appellants to withdraw these appeals. Time to furnish security, as ordered by the learned single Judge, is extended for a period of six weeks from today. It will be open to the appellants to apply before the Arbitrator for vacating/modifying the order by way of interim measure. If any such application/s is/are preferred, the Arbitrator may dispose of the same as early as possible. Respondent No.1 shall also be entitled to prefer application before the learned Arbitrator for appropriate relief. These questions are left to the decision of the Arbitrator. In the meanwhile, it may be open for the parties to negotiate the dispute. Till the Arbitrator takes such decision on such application/s, the injunction granted by the learned single Judge shall continue to operate. 4. Mr. Dhond, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Appeal No. 399 of 2009 submitted that as per the order of the learned single Judge, the applicants are given leave to apply for prayer clauses (j) and (k). Mr. Madon, however, submitted that the interpretation of the order on that aspect is not correct. However, on this aspect, at present we are not expressing any opinion and the said question is kept open for further debate, if so requires. -4- 5. In view of the above, all these appeals are disposed of as withdrawn, subject to the observations made hereinabove. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.V. MORE, J.