1 arbp340.08.sxw ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 340 OF 2008 M/s. Dhiraj Industries Ltd. ....Petitioner. Vs. Co-Operative Bank of Ahmedabad Ltd. Merged with Cosmos Co-operative Bank. ....Respondent. Mr. Cyrus Ardheshir a/w Mr. Charu Anuwala a/w Ms. Smita Sawant i/by M/s. Dave & Co. for the Petitioner. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Sr. Advocate i/by M/s. YKS Legal for the Respondent. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 5th JANUARY, 2011 P.C.: The Petitioner raised the dispute against the Respondent in the year 2003 and filed a Petition before the Registrar Co-operative Societies, Mumbai, as the same was pending, a Writ Petition was filed. A Division Bench of this Court after considering the provisions of the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short, the MSCS Act) appointed the concerned authorities as an Arbitrator to decide the dispute, so raised. While admitting the Arbitration Petition, the 2 arbp340.08.sxw ssm interim protective order was passed in favour of the Petitioner by the Arbitrator. However, as the matter could not be proceeded further, the same was dismissed for default. The Petitioner, therefore, moved an application for restoration of the Arbitration Proceedings. The same was rejected by the impugned order dated 09/05/2008. That resulted into termination of Arbitration proceedings itself. Therefore, this Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act). 2 Mr. Sakhare, the learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the Respondent-Bank, without going further to the merits of the matter makes statement, on instructions, that they have already filed a dispute arising out of the same cause of action against the Petitioner. The Arbitrator is already appointed as per Section 84(3) of the MSCS Act. The matter is pending before him. 3 Considering this, both the parties have agreed that the claims and/or counter claims of the parties be adjudicated afresh on merits before the Arbitrator as appointed and as mentioned in above para. Therefore, in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication of the matter, even otherwise, it is necessary that both the Petitions/claims 3 arbp340.08.sxw ssm and/or counter-claims be heard afresh in all respect. 4 Therefore, I am inclined to allow this Petition. The impugned order dated 09/05/2008 is quashed and set aside. The Arbitration Case No. 1 of 2004, is restored. 5 Both these Arbitration Petitions be heard together. The Arbitrator to give opportunity to both the parties in all respect, in accordance with law. The parties are at liberty to file claims, counter claims, pleadings and/or documents, if any. All points are kept open. The Petition is disposed off accordingly. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)