mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 14 of 2008 SBICAP Securities Ltd. .. Petitioner versus Mrs.Meena Chatterjee .. Respondent ... Mr.Abhishek Khare i/b Khare Legal Chambers for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 3rd June 2008 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The only point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, for challenging the award, is that the Arbitral Tribunal did not take into consideration the relevant documents. When asked to which document was produced before the Arbitral Tribunal and which has not been considered by the Arbitral Tribunal, learned counsel is unable to point out a single document which was filed before the Arbitral Tribunal and was not considered by it. He only invited my attention to its say titled as "response to claim by Meena Chatterjee" and stated that the details of the contract notes and the dates of payment were given in paragraph no.4 of the say and therefore the said contract notes ought to have been considered by the Arbitral Tribunal. On my request to show me the copies of the contract notes produced before the Arbitral Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that they were not filed before the Arbitral Tribunal. He only stated that they were referred to in by the petitioner in their say styled as "response to the claim made by Meena Chatterjee" and therefore they ought to have been called for by the Arbitral Tribunal. In my view, it is no duty of the Arbitral Tribunal to call for any documents by itself. It is for the party who wants to rely upon the documents to produce and prove the documents before the Arbitral Tribunal. This does not appear to have been done. In the circumstances, the contention that Arbitral Tribunal erred in not referring to them has to be rejected. 3. No other point was urged. Arbitration Petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed. (D.G. KARNIK, J)