* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 327 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 229 OF 2008 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION IN APPEAL NO. 2896 OF 2009 IN APPEAL NO. 327 OF 2009 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 229 OF 2008 Barkol Tirupati Developers (P) Ltd. ...Appellants Versus Harijan Girijan Sahakari Grihnirman Society Ltd. ....Respondents ===== Mr. J.P. Sen i/b Mehta & Girdharlal for the petitioner. Mr. G.N. Salunkhe i/b P.A. Pol for respondent. CORAM : J.N.PATEL, & : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2009. P.C. : 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This appeal can be disposed at the stage of admission. Appellants are original petitioners who approached this court by filing Arbitration Petition No. 229 of 2008 * 2 * under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for seeking interim relief pending initiation of Arbitration proceeding. On 31st July, 2008 the learned single Judge of this court rejected the application for grant of interim relief, specifically on the ground of jurisdiction and that the agreement dated 31st May, 1994 was not signed by the other members of the Managing Committee, apart from this, there being gross delay in lodging petition. 2 The learned single Judge has observed that criminal case is pending against the ex-chairman of the society and that the primary nature of the petitioners claim which is the monetary relief sought for in the petition, cannot be granted. 3 The learned counsel for the Appellant has drawn our attention to the fact the earlier agreement dated 31st May, 1994 was signed only by the then Chairman. Subsequently, the same has been ratified by supplementary agreement between the parties on 8th July, 2002 which also contains an arbitration clause 60, renumbered as clause 57. Whatever it is, on going through the copy of the * 3 * agreement, which is annexed as “Exhibit-E” to the appeal and which is not disputed by the respondents, it is quite clear that the supplementary agreement would bind the parties. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that though the cause of action arose much earlier, the appellants-original petitioners did not think it proper to invoke arbitration clause, therefore, the impugned order does not call for any interference. According to the respondents, the claim is barred by limitation. 5 We do not propose to deal with the merits of the matter and address on the issue of limitation. 6 We are prima facie, of the view that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, no interim relief can be granted in favour of the appellant on the ground of delay on latches in approaching the court. Further, in respect of initiation of Arbitration Petition having lodging No. 2509 of 2009 on 24th August, 2009, the parties can agitate their rights before the Hon’ble Chief Justice and in case the Arbitrator is appointed, all questions * 4 * can be resolved by the Arbitrator. Therefore, we do not find any merits in the application. We make it clear that any observation made by us does not affect the rights of the parties on merit, as this court has only examined the issue restricting itself to entitlement of the appellants for interim relief. 7 Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. 8 In view thereof Notice of Motion does not survive. The same is also dismissed as infructuous. [J.N.PATEL, J] [ SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]