1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4665 OF 2009 (M/s. Shrawagi Associates & Anr. vs. Akola Janata Commercial Coop. Bank Ltd. & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 02, 2009. Heard Shri Sarda, learned counsel for the petitioners. The Arbitrator passed ex-parte award for the sum of Rs.6,00,310/- and awarded interest at 17.25% from 28.03.2007 till realization. The petitioners approached the Arbitrator only for setting aside said award and Arbitrator rejected that application on merits as also after noticing that it did not have any such jurisdiction. Thereafter MJC No. 15 of 2009 was filed before Principal District Judge, Akola, under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The application under Section 14 of Limitation Act was also moved to exclude the time spent in proceedings before the Arbitrator. The learned District Judge – II, Akola, has after hearing parties, passed the impugned order. The said order is common order on Exhs. 1 and 13. The delay has not been condoned as the Court found that there was no proper pleading about prosecution of said 2 matter before the Arbitrator in good faith and hence the period could not have been excluded. It, therefore, rejected the application under Section 14 and closed the proceedings. After hearing Shri Sarda, learned counsel, I find that in application before lower Court as also in Writ Petition before this Court, the necessary pleadings to show that proceedings were filed before the Arbitrator bonafide are not there. However, in order to find out whether the petitioners are showing bonafides, Shri Sadar, was asked to find out whether the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit some amount and matter was adjourned to enable him to take instructions. Upon instructions today, he states that the petitioners can pay an amount of Rs. One lakh only. He states that the petitioners are not in a position to pay more than one lakh. Petitioner No.1 is a business establishment while petitioner No.2 is stated to be practicing advocate. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied with the plea that the petitioners are prosecuting the matter bonafide. The order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any jurisdictional error. No case is made out warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE *GS.