( 1 ) UBI Jus Ubi Remedium is a Latinism which has become an integral part of jurisprudence. Considering the vituperous, vehement and vigourous opposition to this petition from Shri Mohninder Puri and the other Respondents represented by S/shri Amarjit Singh Chandiok and Rajiv Nayyar, Senior Advocates, it is surprising that it was ubiquitously reiterated that the Orders dated 13. 5. 2000 passed by Justice S. Ranganathan are ad-invitum. All the more so since the petitioner only seeks jural protection virtually identical to these ad-invitum Orders. The grant of the relief was contested by the Respondents substantially on legal Objections, which is way the legal maxim came to mind. Of equal authority, tested by time, is the view expressed in Ashby v. White that "if a man has a right he must have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise and enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal".

( 2 ) THE petitioner, CREF Finance Limited, (CREF) and Puri Construction Limited, (PCL), entered into an agreement on 10. 11. 1995 for floating a Joint Venture Company for property development. Since PCL already owned 22 acres of land and an additional 32 acres was required, the latter acreage was to be purchased in the name of CREF. As collateral for the investment to be made by CREF, an equitable mortgage of the 22 acres is stated to have been created in terms of PCL s letter dated 16. 11. 1995. It is not in dispute that by 30. 7. 1997 CREF had invested a sum of Rs. 39. 59 crores in the Project. For discharging its liability PCL agreed to the transfer to CREF of built up space admeasuring 1,95,000 sq. ft. to be delivered within 48 months in Block A, and within 60 months in Block B. These terms can be found in the Agreement dated 30. 7. 1997 (Annexure h ). On 10. 3. 1998 a Development Agreement was executed between PCL and Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (Landt) to which CREF was a consenting witness. In this Agreement dated 10. 3. 1998, the prior contract dated 30. 7:1997 was duly noticed and it was specifically mentioned that the latter would be appended thereto. The area of 1,95,000 Sq. ft. . was agreed to be drawn from PCL s allocations. This is only a board overview of the facts, since the disputes in contention have been adequately spelt out and dealt with in the Orders of Justice S. Ranganathan, the Sole Arbitrator appointed by this Court, in terms of the Orders dated 13. 5. 2000. Significantly, all the parties except Landt state that they are bound by and have no hesitation in complying with these Orders. The petitioner s grievance is that even after the passing of these Orders there appears to be a doublespeak by Shri Mohinder Puri, Respondent No. 3 inasmuch as he has indicated that the directions contained in para 7 of the Order of the Learned Sole Arbitrator shall be implemented without any demur. Para 7 reads as under:

"to sum up, PCL is directed to allot to CREF the entirety of the blocks marked as AR and A4 as well as 12 apartments covering an area of about 15000 Sq. ft. in Block B2. PCL will be at liberty to dispose of in favour of the third parties the rest of the area covered by the first phase of development. In consideration of such earmarked allotment, CREF is directed not to interfere directly or indirectly with, or cause any obstructions in the way of PCL and Landt disposing of other buildings in this phase of the project".

( 3 ) IN its letter dated 15. 7. 2000 PCL through its Managing Director Shri Mohinder. Puri had informed the Advocates of the petitioner as under:

"in total compliance with the orders of the learned Arbitrator dt. 13. 5. 2000, we have allocated to your clients the entirety of the blocks marked as A3 and A4 in the development being undertaken by M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. (Landt) in furtherance of the development agreement dt. 10. 3. 1998 which binds us, Landt and ITC Cl