1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR ARBITRATION APPEAL No. 13 OF 2009. Prakash Vrundavan Thakkar -: versus :- The Nagpur Nagrik Sahakari Bank Ltd. And others. 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. DATED : FEBRUARY 24 , 2010. Heard Shri M.R. Johrapurkar, learned counsel for appellant Shri G.B. Soni, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for respondent no.3. The Principal District Judge, has dismissed appeal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act after noticing that no ground warranting interference was made out. Shri Johrapurkar, learned counsel for appellant has contended that the very issue of jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal has not been looked into by the Appellate Court. For said purpose he has invited attention to paragraph nos. 4 and 7 of the impugned judgment. He points out that even the arbitrator has not considered the challenge of petitioner in right perspective in as much as, his contention that he is 2 not member of respondent no.1 Society has not been evaluated at all. According to Shri Sohoni, learned counsel for respondent no.1 Bank, the question of membership has been dealt with separately by the Arbitrator and hence it does not found mention in the impugned award. He further states that those records were called by the Principal District Judge. After hearing the parties, I find that the petitioner has raised a question that he was never enrolled as member of the Society and in answer to it the document in Form-K is being pointed out to this Court by the learned counsel for respondent no.1. The impugned award does not mention even said document and does not show that any separate order has been passed by the Arbitrator overruling that objection. Before Principal District Judge, the said objection was taken and the objection has not been considered by that Court. During hearing and only to show the bonafides the appellant had expressed their bonafide to deposit Rs.50,000/- with the Appellate Court if the matter is sent back for considering all issues afresh. In this situation I find that the matter needs to be sent back to consider all issues afresh. In this situation, I find that the matter needs to be sent back to consider all issues afresh by the Principal District Judge in accordance with law, for the said purpose the impugned order dated 01.04.2009 is quashed and set aside and proceedings in Misc. Civil Application No. 121/2007 is restored back to the file of that Court. The same is however, subject to present appellant depositing Rs. 50,000/- with the 3 office of the Principal District Judge within a period of two weeks from today. The said amount shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the party succeeding before it, by the Principal District Judge. Appeal is thus partly allowed. Parties to appear before the Principal District Judge on 15.03.2010. Civil Application No. 943/2009. At this stage Shri S.P. Kshirsagar, learned counsel for respondent no.3 states that he has filed Civil Application No. 943/2009 in Misc. Civil Application St. No. 16562/2009 challenging the very same judgment of Principal District Judge. In view of the above order he seeks leave to withdraw the Civil Application. Civil Application is accordingly allowed to be withdrawn and the same is disposed of. Though the Civil Application is not on board, the same is taken on board and it is made clear that the challenges raised in the said Application are kept open for consideration by the Principal District Judge. Shri Sohoni, learned counsel appears for respondent Bank in this matter also. JUDGE Rgd.