JUDGMENT :

Indrajit Mahanty, J. - The aforesaid appeals, u/s 37(1)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short "1996 Act" ) have been filed by two sets of Defendants, against a common judgment and order dated 17.3.2008, passed by the learned Dist. Judge Khurda at Bhubaneswar, on an application filed by the Respondents u/s 9 of the said Act which was registered as Arbitration Petition No. 15 of 2008.

2. The operative part of the impugned order of the learned Dist. Judge, Khurda at Bhubaneswar is quoted hereunder:

That the arbitration petition u/s 9 of the Act is allowed on contest against the O. Ps., but in the circumstances without any cost. As an interim measure of protection the scheduled mines are not to be operated by the partners of the reconstituted partnership firm comprising of the Opposite Parties under the partnership deed dated 1.4.93 and the partnership firm constituted under the partnership deed dated 3.8.91 comprising of the Petitioner and the O.P. No. 1 in which the O.P. No. 1 is the Managing Partner is at liberty to carry on mining business in the scheduled mines in terms of the partnership deed dated 3.8.91 comprising of the Petitioner and the O.P. No.