* 1 * Appeal(l).226.2011 28.6.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L) NO. 226 OF 2011 IN ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 1149 OF 2010 M/s. Al-Habib Engineering (I) Pvt. Ltd ......Appellants /Orig.Petitioners V/S. Bombay Mercantile Co-op Bank Ltd ....Respondent * * * * Ms. Usha Srivastav i/by. Consulta Juris, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Saleem Valjee, Advocate for the respondent. CORAM :- MOHIT S. SHAH, CJ & SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. 28th June, 2011. P.C. :- 1. What is challenged in this appeal is the order dated 8th March, 2011 passed by the learned Single judge of this Court dismissing the appellant’s petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the award dated 15th May, 2010 passed by the learned Arbitrator appointed by the Central Registrar under the Multi- State Co-operative Societies Act. The appellant had made several * 2 * Appeal(l).226.2011 28.6.2011 applications to the respondent-bank for various facilities by way of overdraft and loans and had borrowed monies from respondent-bank. On failure to repay the amounts borrowed, inspite of demands, the respondent filed an application before the Registrar, Multi-State Co- operative Societies for appointment of an Arbitrator. Accordingly, the Arbitrator was appointed and the award dated 15th May, 2010 came to be passed. The award has been challenged by the appellant before the learned trial judge. The only contention before the learned trial judge was that the appellant had made several applications to Kalyan Janata Sahakari Co-operative Bank Ltd who was to repay the loan amount to respondent-bank, but, because the respondent-bank did not give consent for such repayment, the loan could not be repaid. The learned judge further held that consent of the respondent-bank was not required for repayment of the loan by obtaining loan from any other source or bank. He further noted that no other ground was urged and accordingly dismissed the petition. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant, sought to urge that the appellant was not a member of the respondent-bank. No such contention was urged before the learned single judge. On the contrary, specific statement is made in the order of the learned trial judge that appellant no.1 is the member of the respondent-bank and that in his * 3 * Appeal(l).226.2011 28.6.2011 capacity as a Member made several applications to the bank for various facilities by way of overdraft and loans. 3. As a matter of fact, before the learned Arbitrator the only issue which is relevant to the above controversy sought to be raised before us was whether appellant-bank proved that respondents no.4 and 5 are also the members of the bank. It is therefore clear that, even before the Arbitrator there was no dispute about the fact that the appellant nos.1 to 3 are members of the respondent-bank. The learned Arbitrator held that the documents on record regarding the membership of respondents no.4 and 5 are established by the bank. The bank also placed on record membership application duly executed by respondents no.4 and 5 which was accepted by the bank. In view of the above also, we do not find any merit in the contention which was not raised by the learned Single judge. The appeal is therefore summarily dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] [CHIEF JUSTICE]