1 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.567 OF 2009 Religare Finvest Ltd. .. Petitioner -versus Krishna Pet Pvt. Ltd and 3 ors .. Respondents. Mr. Rajesh Jain i/b Kohli & Sobti Adv for the petitioners Ms D. Dhankar for the Respondents. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: 4th February, 2010 P.C. 1. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invoked section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, l996. In view of the arbitration clause between the parties, there is no dispute that the petitioner can invoke this proceeding in this Court. Admittedly arbitration proceeding is pending at Delhi. The immovable properties are situated in Mumbai. This Court under section 9 of the Act, not deciding any issue with regard to the jurisdiction/place of arbitration and merits of the matter. However, considering the apprehension so raised and in view of the fact that there is agreement between the parties and as averred the amount is due and payable and therefore, in a petition under section 9 of the Act, 2 without going into the merits of the matter, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, make statement on instructions from Mr. Paresh Kantilal Dattani, respondent No.2 that in respect of the properties listed in prayer clause (a), they will not transfer and/or create any further third party rights and/or interest therein. In view of this, I see there is no further order necessary as pending arbitration the amount is secured in view of this statement. 2. However, liberty is granted to both parties to raise proper plea or defence before the Tribunal. Liberty is also granted to settle the matter. Liberty is also granted to petitioner to take out appropriate application before Tribunal, if necessary. Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ( ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)