1 arbp149-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.149 OF 2011 Sippy Films Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner vs. Nimbus Communications Ltd. ...Respondent --- Mr.S.Jagtiani i/b. M/s.Wadia Gandhy & Co., for petitioner. Mr.Anil Menon, for Respondent. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 24th June,2011. P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner. The learned Arbitrator has given reasons for holding that invocation of arbitration clause was within limitation. The 2 arbp149-11 learned Arbitrator has held that the petitioner had himself promised that by 15.1.1995 the serial will be telecast and therefore, when the petitioner failed to do that the cause of action for demanding money back arose, and therefore, reference in July,1995 will be within limitation. As I find that the finding recorded by the learned Arbitrator on the basis of the correspondence between the parties and the terms of agreement is a possible finding, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the Award impugned in the petition, in its limited jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act. 2. So far as awarding of interest from the date of advance is concerned, Clause 17 of the Agreement is clear. It provides for refund of amount with interest at 18%p.a. Obviously, therefore, the interest will have to be awarded from the date on which the advance is given. 3 arbp149-11 Even assuming that the finding of the Arbitrator that Rs.75 lakhs is the amount of security deposit, is wrong, it is to be treated as amount of advance made under the contract as described in the clause. In my opinion, as the amount was actually paid, the Award cannot be termed as arbitrary. The petition, therefore, cannot be entertained. It is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) ---