hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1688 OF 2011 M/s. Neeraj Cement Structural Pvt. Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus Hon'ble Arbitral Tribunal and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Tejas Deshpande for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Apte, Sr. Advocate i/by Mr. Ashutosh Gole for respondent no. 2. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 12, , 2011 P.C. Heard the learned counsel appearing in the matter. In our view the order passed by the Arbitrator is not required to be interfered with. Before the Arbitrator, the petitioner moved an application that the proceedings should be stayed. One of the ground which was raised was since the petitioner is facing prosecution and if he is required to open his defence, it will prejudice his case. The Arbitrator has considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Kishan Singh Vs. Gurpal Singh, AIR 2010 SC 3624 holding that the findings of fact recorded by the Civil Court do not have any bearing so far as then criminal case is concerned and vice versa. Standard of proof is different in civil and criminal cases. In our view, the arbitral proceedings are not required to be halted as the Arbitrator is required to give his award within prescribed statutory limit. The criminal case may take years together and it will not be just to stay arbitral proceedings for indefinite period. The Arbitrator has given cogent reasons for not staying the arbitral proceedings. The petitioner therefore, may now file written statement within the period of four weeks from today before the Arbitrator. If such reply is filed, the Arbitrator may accept the same. It is pointed out by Mr. Apte, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 that even the oral evidence has begun. However, we give last chance to the petitioner to file his written statement. If the same is not filed within stipulated period, the Arbitrator will proceed with the matter as it is. With the above observations, petition stands disposed of. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be permitted to file appropriate application for quashing criminal proceedings. Permission of this court is not required for the same. It is open for the petitioner to take out appropriate proceeding which he deem fit, if entitled in law. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (P.B. MAJMUDAR,J)