Chandka IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2007 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17 OF 2007 IN IN IN ARBITRAL APPEAL STAMP NO. 24628 OF 2007 ARBITRAL APPEAL STAMP NO. 24628 OF 2007 ARBITRAL APPEAL STAMP NO. 24628 OF 2007 Mumbai International Airport ..Applicants / Pvt. Ltd. ..Appellants versus Garuda Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. P. Samdhani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. A. Marathe and Mr. S. Jagtap i/b. Wadia Gandhy & Co. for the Applicants / Appellants. Mr. S. U. Kamdar, Sr. Advocate with V. J. Hegde for the Respondent No.1. Mr. R. Gujar i/b. Jurius Consults for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 2ND NOVEMBER, 2007. DATE : 2ND NOVEMBER, 2007. DATE : 2ND NOVEMBER, 2007. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. 2. Prima facie the question of possession does not appear to be arbitrable in view of Clause 30 of the Agreement. As regards possession, clause 16 of the Agreement relied upon by the respondent No.1 only grants right of user of the premises and does Chandka not put the owners in possession of a specific area. It is further clear that the alleged wrong is clearly capable of being compensated in monetary terms. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Applicants are entitled to an interim order in terms of prayer clause (a), pending appeal. Application is disposed of accordingly. Order accordingly. 3. At this stage, Mr. Kamdar learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 seeks stay of this order. Application for stay is rejected. (S.A. BOBDE, J.) (S.A. BOBDE, J.) (S.A. BOBDE, J.)