ssp 1 WP 968 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.968 OF 2011 M/s.Jethalal Nemchand and Ors. .....Petitioners versus The Administrator appointed by the Central Government and Anr. ..... Respondents Mr.P.D.Sampat i/by Mr.Vilas Jadhav, for the petitioners. Mr.B.B.Nagare, for respondent No.1. Mr.G.H.Hariharan a/w Mr.N.R.Prajapati, for respondent No.2. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 20 th OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. 1. The petitioners have approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction, challenging the rejection of their application by orders dated 26-12-2003 and 12-01-2011 (Exh.C6 and G5 respectively) for availing of the OTS scheme or acts carried out in furtherance thereof. As can be deciphered from the prayer clauses of the petition, the petitioners seek to avail of the OTS scheme propounded by the Reserve Bank of India in respect of the respondent No.1, which is presently administered by the Administrator appointed by the Central Government. 2. The record discloses that there is an Arbitration Award against the petitioner for a sum of `6,61,91,855.51 along with interest at ssp 2 WP 968 of 2011 21% p.a. from 01-07-2003 and the cost of `30,000/-. Against the said Arbitral Award, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Reconciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the said Arbitral Award dated 10-06-2008 in the Court of the City Civil Judge, Ahmedabad, under Section 36 of the Act, in which proceedings it is the case of the petitioner that the said Award has been stayed. The record further discloses that against the rejection of the petitioner’s application under OTS-2, the petitioners had filed a Special Civil application No.10859 of 2010 in the High Court of Gujarat for setting aside the said rejection order. It also appears from the record that by an order dated 29-09-2010, the High Court of Gujarat passed an order directing the bank to give grounds for rejection within a period of six weeks on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Associates and Ors. V/s. Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors.1 3. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 Bank had filed Miscellaneous Application No.3064 of 2010 in the High Court of Gujarat in the said Special Civil Application No.10859 of 2010 for extension of time to comply with the High Court order dated 29-09-2010. Since the order was already passed in the mean time, the High Court of Gujarat disposed of the said Miscellaneous Application No.3064 of 2010 on the said ground. 1 (2009) 8 SCC 257 ssp 3 WP 968 of 2011 4. Hence, as can be seen at an earlier stage, the petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court in connection with the subject matter of OTS 2. Now, the above petition is filed challenging the subsequent orders, but the basic issue is as regards the petitioners entitlement to the OTS scheme, which aspect has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In our view, it would not be proper to entertain the above petition, as for the same prayers, the petitioners had earlier invoked the jurisdiction of the Gujarat High Court and the matter was decided by the Gujarat High Court on its own merits, and qua the subsequent orders the writ jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked. Though, this Court may have jurisdiction to entertain the above dispute, but in the backdrop of what is stated above, it will not be open to the petitioners to raise this issue before this Court, which they have already raised before the Gujarat High Court as they had already approached the Gujarat High Court in connection with OTS 2. If a petition where a litigant had earlier gone to another High Court regarding the same subject matter is entertained, it would result in the litigant approaching one High Court and if orders are passed against him, he may choose another High Court at a subsequent stage, simply because both the High Courts may have territorial jurisdiction. This Court is therefore, required to consider the said aspect of the matter. In view of what is stated above, this Court would ssp 4 WP 968 of 2011 not like to exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction by entertaining the above petition. The petition is accordingly, dismissed. Needless to state that dismissal of the petition would not come in the way of the petitioners in approaching the Gujarat High Court for redressal of their grievance in respect of the said OTS Scheme. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )