1 ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.220 OF 2009 ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. Ishan Deshmukh @ Prasad V. Kulkarni ...Respondent. Mr. E.P. Bharucha Sr. Counsel with Arzan Balsara with Mr. Nimish Kothari i/by Nanu Hormasjee & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. Nitin Apte i/by Mr. P.G.Chavan for the Respondent. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 18TH JUNE, 2009. P.C.- 1. The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Act”), basically against Respondent No.1, based upon the agreement dated 09/05/2006. There is an Arbitration clause that :- “18. Governing Law and Jurisdiction- 18.1 This Agreement shall be construed, interpreted and governed by and in accordance with the laws of India. 18.2 Subject to clause 18.3 below, all disputes arising out of this Agreement and any document related hereto shall be 2 subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Mumbai. 18.3 In the event of any dispute or diffrerences if arises between the parties hereto, shall be referred to arbitration by appointing an Arbitrator with mutual consent or where permitted by referring the matter to arbitration of any statutory or trade/ industry body. However in case the Arbitrator is no appointed with mutual consent of both parties, the parties will have recourses to the court of law for resolving the dispute.” 2. Apart from the averments already made specially in view of amended paragraph 24, 24A to 24G to the plaint and as there is no basic denial to the transfer of the said amount in the Account of Respondent No.2 wife- Kalyani Prasad Kulkarni, prima facie there is a case made out for reliefs as prayed. 3. The dispute arose between the parties with regard to this amount as referred in paragraph No.24 that is the subject matter of this Arbitration agreement. 4. On 21st March, 2009, this Court after considering the rival contentions, has granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) (except bracketed portion). The order is reproduced as under:- “ORDER . Issue ad-interim injunction in terms of prayer clause (b) except the bracketed portion “using any interest accrued thereon or” against the respondent. 3 . Petitioner to remove office objections and arrange to get the petition numbered. . Petition stands adjourned to 30th March, 2009 for ad- interim hereing. . Petitioner to serve a copy of this order duly authenticated by the Personal Assistant/ Associate of this Court upon the concerned Bank with whom Rs.3 crores are invested as Fixed deposit.” 5. This order has continued this order from time to time. 6. There are reply and rejoinder filed to the respective averments made. 7. Without going further into the rival contention, at this stage, the Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner makes statement that they will file application under Section 11 of the Act, within one week, as though they have filed this Petition under Section 9 on the apprehension as recorded, yet they have not taken any steps to appoint Arbitrator through the Court, as in spite of their nomination of one arbitrator, other side had opposed. It is necessary to file such application for appointment of Arbitrator. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent fairly submitted that their interest is that the matter should be disposed of as early as possible. In view of this, the submission is that the order as already passed by this Court may be continued till the appointment of the Arbitrator. Both the parties will co-operate to get the Arbitrator appointed. This order, 4 therefore, shall continue till appointment of Arbitral Tribunal and four weeks more thereafter. 9. In the result, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). Interim order to continue till the appointment of Arbitrator and four weeks thereafter. The liberty is granted to the parties to take appropriate application, for orders from the Arbitral Tribunal, if so instructed. 10. The Petition is, accordingly allowed by keeping all points open. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)