1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 68 OF 2009 Piramal Diagnostic Services Pvt. Ltds. ...Petitioner. Vs. Sairabh Chakrabarty & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. P. Chinnappa i/by M/s. Crawford Bayley & Co. for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. CORAM :- ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED :- 4th November, 2009. P.C.- 1 The Petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Arbitration Act), as events goes, it appears that inspite of Business Acquisition Agreement and Consultancy Agreements, the Respondents continued with the named business and services. In those agreements, there is an Arbitration Clause and as dispute arose, the Petitioner invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration Act. 2 This Court, after hearing both the parties, on 6th February, 2009, passed the order which is as under:- P.C. 1. The learned counsel for the respondents seeks time to look 2 to the papers and attend to the matter. The learned counsel for the respondents upon instructions makes a statement that hereafter till further orders, the respondents shall not represent themselves to be director of the petitioners. He further makes a statement before the Court that the respondent shall not use the name of the petitioners while carrying out their respective business. All the machineries and various articles which were in-charge of the respondents pursuant to the agreement between them and the plaintiffs, are in the custody of the respective respondents and the respective respondents shall not create third party rights and/or part with possession of these articles to anybody else till further orders. This arrangement to continue till further order in the Arbitration petition No.68 of 2009. Adjourned to 26-02-2009.” 3 Thereafter, the matter was listed on 26th February, 2009. By order dated 26th February, 2009, it is recorded that the said order regarding machinery etc. to continue till the disposal of the Arbitration Petition. 4 None appeared for the Respondents on 15th July, 2009. This Court adjourned the petition and made Rule returnable on 12th August, 2009. None appeared for the Respondents on 26th August, 2009. The matter was adjourned for 2nd September, 2009 for final disposal as a last chance. The matter is listed again. 5 After considering the averments made on record by both the parties, at this stage, I am inclined to maintain the order already passed by this Court by recording the statement on 6th February, 2009, as the arbitration clauses itself provides the remedies to the parties to settle the matter/dispute, if any. Prima facie, in view of the agreements above, until it is decided finally in either way, it is desirable and rightly recorded in the 3 order that the defendants should not use the name of the Petitioner while carrying out the respective business, contrary to the agreements. Basically, there is no denial to the existence of these agreements. In my view, therefore, the Petitioner has made out the prima facie case. The balance of convenience also lies in his favour, besides the conduct of the Defendants. Therefore, as all the ingredients are available to grant interim relief as contemplated under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act, at this stage, pending the final decision of the Arbitral Tribunal, if so constituted, the interim order and the statement so recorded on 6th February, 2009 shall continue till the constitution of the Arbitral Tribunal and six weeks thereafter. 6 In the result, the Petition is accordingly allowed to the above extent, with liberty. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)