ARBP56-11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.56 OF 2011 Mrs.Jayaben Ramniklal Salot & Anr .. Petitioners Versus Mr.Bharat Ramniklal Salot & Anr .. Respondents Mr.R.D.Dave i/by N.N.Vaishnawa & Co for the petitioners. Mr.Mahesh Londhe i/by S.Udeshi & Co for the respondents. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 2nd FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. . Heard both sides. 2 The petitioners have filed this petition under section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 contending that there was a partnership between the petitioners and the respondents which is evidenced by a Deed of Partnership dated 28th September 1976. The partnership is at will. It is stated that the Deed of Partnership was modified wherein each partner had 25% share. After setting out the details of the Deed of Partnership and the modification so also the properties held, it is ARBP56-11 2 stated that there is bank account of the partnership with Union Bank of India, Bhuleshwar branch, Mumbai 400 004. It is stated that the business of the partnership has been discontinued and all that is being done is to manage the properties. It is stated that in or about December 2010 the petitioners learnt that the respondents are trying to sell and transfer some of the properties and therefore a protest was lodged by writing a letter. Since there is no response and the petitioners apprehend that all properties may be sold and disposed of so as to defeat the award that may be rendered in the arbitral proceedings, which the petitioners are ready and willing to commence appropriate interim measures be granted or atleast the ad-interim order dated 27th December 2010 recording the statement of the respondents be continued until the award is made by the Arbitrator. 3 An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the respondents in which it has been specifically stated that the petitioner No.1 is the mother. She cannot write and read English. She has been dragged into this litigation by the petitioner No.2 and a fraud is perpetrated on her and so also on this Court. Further, it is stated that the partnership deeds which have been referred to have been further modified in August 2002 whereunder a power has been given to each of the partners to sell the property. Annexure ‘C’ to the reply is a copy of the modified partnership ARBP56-11 3 deed. All the parties to the petition are signatories thereto. 4 In the light of this and further the learned advocate appearing for the respondents making a statement on instructions that even if the properties of the firm are disposed off the proceeds will be kept in the principal bank account, namely, Union Bank of India, Bhuleshwar branch, Mumbai and none of the parties will withdraw their share therefrom until the arbitral award is rendered, I do not see any reason to grant any interim measures in favour of the petitioners. More so, when none of the statements in affidavit-in-reply have been controverted. Prima facie, the petitioners seem to be ready and willing to the arrangement recorded in the modified deed. The arbitration petition is, therefore, dismissed subject to above. 5 Needless to state that if the respondents dispose of any properties, they shall forward copies of the agreements/conveyances/sale deeds to the petitioners advocate. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)