IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 229 OF 2008 ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 229 OF 2008 ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 229 OF 2008 Barkol Tirupati Developers Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioners vs. Harijan Girijan Sahakari Grih-Nirman Sociaty Ltd. ...Respondents Mr.Chirag Balsara with Mr.Amit Vyas and Ms.C. Pereira i/b. M/s.Rajani Associates for the Petitioners. Mr.Mahendra Shingade i/b. Mr.G.N. Salunke for the Respondents. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JULY 31, 2008 DATED : JULY 31, 2008 DATED : JULY 31, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. The petitioners have filed the arbitration petition under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation At, 1996. The following reliefs are claimed :- a. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Arbitration proceedings and passing of the final award the Respondents, their servants and agents be restrained by an Order and injunction of this Hon’ble Court from awarding construction contract or carrying out or continuing any work of construction on the Land - 2 - viz. Survey No.1, Hissa No.1-2B, admeasuring about 14200 sq.mtrs. situated lying and being at 51A/1-2B, Kesarkar Peth, Satara City, District Satara, Satara. b. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Arbitration proceedings, the Respondents their servants and agents be restrained from creating any further third party right or interest in respect of the Land viz. Survey No.1, Hissa No.1-2B, admeasuring about 14200 sq.mtrs. situated lying and being at 51A/1-2B, Kesarkar Peth, Satara City, District Satara, Satara. c. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Arbitration proceedings, the Respondent Society be directed to deposit in this Hon’ble Court an amount of Rs.2,54,69437.50 forthwith being the liability for the development works undertaken by the Petitioners on the Land; - 3 - d. Alternatively to prayer (c), the Respondent be directed to deposit the proceeds that may be received from the sale of the Flat of the extent of the claim of the petitioner being Rs.25469437.50. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent no.1 through the office bearers of its managing committee represented that respondent no.1 was absolute owner of land bearing survey Hissa No.1-2B admeasuring 14,200 sq.mtrs. and it is situated at Kesarkar Peth, Satara. Accordingly, agreement was executed between the parties on 31st May, 1994. According to the petitioners, pursuant to the said agreement, they commenced the construction activity and spent huge amounts for carrying out the said work. Two bills were sent dated 5th May, 1995 and 17th August, 1996 for a sum of Rs.57,81,250/- and Rs.4,68,750/- aggregating to Rs.62,50,000/-. The said amount is not paid and thereafter, a Supplementary Agreement was executed in 2002. It is submitted that even thereafter, the respondents could not make any payment and - 4 - therefore, the present petition has been filed seeking urgent interim reliefs. 3. It is submitted that there is arbitration clause in both the agreements. It is further submitted that in agreement of 2002, it was specifically agreed by the parties that in the event of their being a dispute between the parties, the matter may be referred to arbitration and till the final award is passed in the arbitration proceedings, society shall not appoint any other architect, contractor or sub-contractor and shall not issue the work of construction and/or complete the development work as contemplated in the agreements. It is submitted that therefore, under the circumstances, interim order in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) may be granted. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the claim of the petitioners was a money claim and therefore, the petitioners does not entitle to seek interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). It is further submitted that - 5 - agreement of 1994 was executed by the then Chairman only and not by the members of the Managing Committee. He submitted that criminal case had been filed against the erstwhile chairman. He then submitted that in both the agreements, it was specifically agreed that the Satara District Court would have exclusive jurisdiction. 5. After having heard both the learned Counsel at length, in my view, no case is made out for grant of interim relief. Agreement dated 31st May, 1994 is not signed by the other members of the Managing Committee. There is a gross delay in filing this petition. Admittedly, criminal case is pending against the erstwhile chairman of the society. The claim of the petitioners is a money claim which can be seen from the particulars of claim which is annexed to the petition. No case, therefore, is made out for grant of interim reliefs. 6. Petition, accordingly, is dismissed. 7. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the - 6 - petitioners seeks continuation of the interim relief for a period of two weeks. Request is declined. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)