1 wp 7238.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7238 OF 2011 Shirish Suryakant Shirsathe .. Petitioner Versus Sadashiv Rajaram Pawar and another .. Respondents Shri Kishor C. Sant, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The arbitration proceedings are pending before the present respondent No. 1. The present petitioner filed an application asking the arbitrator to refrain from the proceedings of the matter on the ground that the arbitrator has interest in the proceeding and is not acting fairly. The said application is rejected by the arbitrator. The arbitrator has made following observations : "I was not looking and handling and preparing the accounts of the partnership firm M/s Sony Computers and Enterprises. I was just acting as tax 2 wp 7238.11 consultant and income tax auditor of M/s Sony Computers and Enterprises. I was not looking personal matters of petitioner and respondent." The said order is assailed in the present petition. 2. Shri Sant, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was the duty of the arbitrator to disclose his interest in view of Sec. 12 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The learned counsel submits that the arbitrator has admitted that he was a tax consultant and income tax auditor of M/s Sony Computers and Enterprises. But the said fact was not disclosed when he was appointed as arbitrator and when the petitioner got the knowledge about the same, the application was filed. The arbitrator should have considered the said aspect and should have refrained itself from the matter. According to the learned counsel the arbitrator cannot proceed with the matter and all cannons of justice require that the arbitrator should be changed. 3. Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act mandates that no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this part. Though the same may not be strictly applicable in its letter and spirit, so far as the jurisdiction of the 3 wp 7238.11 Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is concerned, still the Arbitration and Conciliation Act being a complete code in itself provides the remedy for various contingencies. I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Even otherwise the petitioner if is required to challenge the award can raise such ground in an application U/Sec. 34 of the said Act, wherein misconduct is also one of the ground for setting aside the award. 4. In the light of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs. 5. Needless to state the petitioner is at liberty to undertake any other remedy if available in law. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11