H.K. RATHOD, J. This matter was heard by this Court on 20th January 2010 and the matter was reserved for judgment.

2. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta appearing on behalf of appellant and learned Advocate Mr. Nitin Mehta appearing for on behalf of respondent.

2.1. The appellant has challenged interim order, below exh. 1 filed by respondent herein before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Misc. Application No. 990 of 2009 dated 16th October 2009. The City Civil Court, Ahmedabad has passed following order :

“Application is partly allowed. Interim relief granted earlier is confirmed.

(1) The respondent shall deposit before this Court an outstanding amount upto 31/12/2008 in terms of the two agreement calculated at the rate of Rs.18,63,812 (Rs. Eighteen Lacs Sixty Three Thousand Eight Hundred Twelve only) per month from 1st August, 2008. This shall be subject to final outcome in the arbitral proceedings.

(2) The respondent shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,21,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs Twenty One Thousand only) every month in this Court effective from 01/01/2009 and upon such deposit, the applicant shall be entitled to withdraw the same.

(3) The respondent shall execute solvent security in the sum of Rs.2,50,00,000/- (Rs. Two Crore Fifty Lacs only) within a period 2 weeks from today.

(4) The applicant shall initiate the arbitration proceedings by giving notice to the respondent within a period of 4 weeks from today.

Application stand disposed of accordingly.”

3. Learned Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta raised contention before this Court challenging aforesaid interim order, which has been passed by the trial Court under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”). Learned Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta submitted that on 6th March 2007, Business Conducting Agreement signed by both parties. The premises in question, is belonging to respondent, where retails and departmental stores conducted by appellant in the name of 'Vishal Mega Mart'. On 4th April 2007 possession of property handed over to appellant by respondent. On 17th June 2007 rent period started, which is to be paid by appellant. About 15,000/- sq. ft. area for parking place was not provided by respondent and therefore, dispute has been arisen, which required renegotiation between both the parties. Therefore, on 20th October 2007, two separate agreements, after renegotiation, arrived at between both the parties viz. Business Conducting Agreement and Service and Amenities Agreement. The date of renegotiation commenced on is 13th October 2007. The minimum monthly rent for a period of three years decided, wherein one month rent is Rs.18,63,812/-. On 31st July 2008 alleged default of not paying rent by appellant committed meaning thereby that, the appellant stopped paying rent to the respondent. On 7th November 2008, the appellant wrote termination letter to terminate mutually both agreements. This aspect has been denied by respondent vide letter dated 10th November 2008. On 27th February 2009, Rs.12,69,923/- monthly rent towards November/December 2008 paid by appellant to respondent. Similarly, on 15th May 2009, Rs.12,69,923/- monthly rent for January/February 2009 paid by the appellant to respondent.

3.1. On 5th September 2009, an application under Sec. 9 of the Arbitration Act has been filed by respondent. The trial Court passed order on 16th October 2009 and certain directions have been issued by the trial Court, which are on page 13 to the appeal. The arbitration proceedings have commenced from November 2009 and no dispute is raised for commencing arbitration proceedings. However, respondent is not agree to this submission made by learned Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta. In respect to security amount of Rs.62,80,000/-, according to learned Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta, it has been wrongly forfeited by respondent. Learned Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta emphasized that direction in respect to solvent security of 2.5 crores shall have to be executed by appell