1 ARBP 1117 OF 2010.sxw vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.1117 OF 2010 Bhikaji S Mondkar .. Petitioner -versus Abhydaya Co Op Bank Ltd. .. Respondent. Mr. Ashish Naik, for the Petitioner. None for the respondents CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: 19th November, 2010 P.C. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition invoking section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short called as “the Act”) as the disputant/petitioner’s application under Section 108 of the Multi State Co-Operative Societies’ Act, 2002 (for short called as “MSCS Act”) was rejected. The operative part of the order reads thus: “The Claim/dispute is rejected. The disputant is however at liberty to exercise his rights under Section 108 only with reference to the books, papers and documents only to the extent of and as specifically defined in Section 106 and 107 of the Multi State Co- operative Societies’ Act, 2002)”. 2. Though permitted under Section 84 of MSCS Act, to 2 ARBP 1117 OF 2010.sxw invoke the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act (for short “Act”), such order of rejection as applicant seeking information, just cannot be agitated or treated as interim award/final order as contemplated under Section 34 of the Act. The submission is that there is no other remedy available to the parties against such order passed by the Arbitrator, appointed under section 84 of the M.S.C.S Act. Without going to the merits of that aspect in the present facts and circumstances, I therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order so passed in view of clear provisions and the reasoning so given. No one can ask informations unless specifically permitted under the provisions of the MSCS Act. Even otherwise the inspection, except the informations which are necessary for proper adjudication of the dispute, so raised cannot be extended to roving inquiry or general informations other than necessary. It is rightly observed that the petitioner cannot be permitted to go beyond section 108 read with sections 106 and 107 of the M. S.C. S. Act. I see there is no perversity and/or illegality in the order. The petition is rejected. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)