1 W.P.No.9173/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.9173 OF 2011. M/s Dollex Industries Limited, 601, Landmark Residency, St.Jonh Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400 050... Petitioner. Versus The Nanded District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Nanded and another. ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.J.Suryawanshi, advocate for the Caveator. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 29.11.2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The parties are before the Arbitrator. 2 W.P.No.9173/11 This Court vide order dated 17.2.2011, in Arbitration Application No.15/2010, appointed Commissioner of Sugar,Maharashtra State, Pune as the sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties. Pursuant thereto, the parties approached the Arbitrator. The proceedings commenced before the Arbitrator. It appears that the present petitioner filed application for adjournment on 10.10.2011 and thereafter on or about 19.10.2011, the petitioner filed an application purportedly U/s 12(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and sought relief that the Arbitrator i.e. the present Respondent No.2 shall not proceed with the proceedings on the ground of bias. The said application is rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 3. Mr.Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the Commissioner of Sugar was a different person and the proceedings were continued properly. The orders were passed for the inspection and custody of documents from the present Respondent No.1. 3 W.P.No.9173/11 Even applications were made to the concerned Police Station to provide protection but the petitioner could not get the documents. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Sugar changed and the present Respondent No.2 Mr.Vijay Singhal, assumed the office of the Commissioner of Sugar and he undertook the proceedings. The learned counsel contends that the manner in which the proceedings were taken up itself shows that the Respondent No.2 was not giving any opportunity to the petitioner nor was conducting the proceedings in a free and fair manner and as such the application was filed. Learned counsel referred to some circumstances. The learned counsel submits that the claims are not yet filed and the learned Arbitrator is threatening to decide and dispose of the proceedings. In such circumstances, the application of the petitioner should have been allowed. 4. Mr.Suryawanshi, learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that ample opportunity has been given to the petitioner. Even the documents have been provided by the Respondent 4 W.P.No.9173/11 No.1 to the petitioner but the petitioner is seeking adjournments on one or the other counts. Even after the order was passed by the Arbitrator, rejecting the application of the petitioner purportedly U/s 12(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, further opportunity is granted to the petitioner but the petitioner is not submitting his claims and the order is rightly passed. No bias can be attributed to the Arbitrator. 5. Section 5 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act reads as under : "5. Extent of judicial intervention.-Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, in matters governed by this Part, no judicial authority shall intervene except where so provided in this Part." By virtue of Section 5 a mandate is laid down 5 W.P.No.9173/11 that the proceedings before the Arbitrator should not be intervened except where so provided in this part. No doubt, there can not be any fetters on the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, but at the same time it will also have to be seen that even if the proceedings are concluded then the petitioner has every opportunity to challenge the award on the grounds enumerated in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. The petitioner can raise all the grounds U/s 34 as is enumerated in the said provision in case petitioner is required to challenge the award. 6. Further by the impugned order also, it is seen that opportunity was granted to the petitioner. It is submitted that the claim is not yet filed by the petitioner. The petitioner may file his claim within a period of 15 days from today and the Respondent No.2 shall conduct the Arbitration proceedings as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 7. The Writ Petition is accordingly 6 W.P.No.9173/11 disposed of. No costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp917311