1                           4­ARBP­547­13



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                  ARBITRATION PETITION NO.547 OF 2013
                                   WITH
                                                                        rt
                                               C
                   NOTICE OF MOTION LODGING NO.1297 OF 2013


    M/s. Chourangi Builders and Developers      ou
    Pvt. Ltd. And Anr. Amitabh Niladri Bhadu               ....Petitioners.
    Versus
    Maharashtra Airport Development Co. Ltd.               ...Respondent.

    Mr. R.S.Apte, Sr. Advocate with Najafuja Shroff i/by Mr. P.M.Havnur,
    advocates for the Petitioners.     h
    Mr. Dr. Birendra Saraf i/by Amit A. Karande, advocates for the
    respondent.
                               ig
                        H              CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.
                                       DATED    : JULY 22, 2013.




    ba
    P.C.:

               Precipes are      moved in the aforesaid proceedings for,

      y
    Speaking to the Minutes of the Order dated 11th July, 2013 by the

    respondent, and for appointment of Substitute Arbitrator by both the

om  learned counsel to the petition.




B   2          Counsel for the respondent contends that in line number 3 of

    paragraph 2 of the aforesaid order, this Court observed that                “The

    Division Bench of this Court initially granted status-quo in favour of


    Shivgan                                                                        1/2




                                               ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2013 20:20:03 :::
                                           2                            4­ARBP­547­13

    the petitioners.” He submits that no such order of status-quo was

    granted in favour of the petitioners. This position is not disputed by the
                                                                            rt
    learned counsel for the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the said line

    is deleted from the aforesaid order.
                                                   Cou
    3           By the order dated 11 th July, 2013, Mr. Justice J.P.Devadhar

    (Retired) was appointed as a Sole Arbitrator to arbitrate disputes between

    the parties to the petition. However, Justice Devadhar is not available for
                                        h
    arbitration. In that view of the matter, parties agree to appoint Mr. Justice

                               ig
    J.A.Patil (Retired)    as a Substitute      Arbitrator to arbitrate disputes


                        H
    between the parties to the petition.



    4          Since Justice Devadhar could not act as Sole Arbitrator,

    ba
    petitioner could not approach him for interim measures and the period of


      y
    two weeks has been elapsed in taking out precipe for appointing

    substitute arbitrator and disposing of the same. In that view of the matter,


om  status-quo granted under the order dated 11th July, 2013 is continued for

    a further period of two weeks.



B                                                  (RANJIT MORE, J.)




    Shivgan                                                                            2/2




                                                   ::: Downloaded on - 25/07/2013 20:20:03 :::