1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 647 OF 2009 Narendra M. Sakharkar & anr. .... Petitioners vs Tata Capital Ltd. .... Respondents Ms. Shaila Pande i/b. N.M.Pendari for the petitioner. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 10th September, 2009 P.C.: 1 The petitioner has invoked Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, the Act) on the ground that the learned Arbitrator rejected her submission to conduct the arbitral proceedings as per the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The submission is also made that thereby the Arbitrator has rejected the application to lead evidence. 2 Without going to the merits of the matter, at this stage, the petition under Section 9 of the Act, as filed is not maintainable. The remedy is elsewhere. However, it is made clear that the petitioner is entitled to file appropriate application before the Arbitrator, if the respondents want to lead any evidence in support of the defence. 3 The Arbitrator is free to deal with the same in accordance with law. 4 The Petition is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)