ssp 1 WP(L) 1934 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.1934 of 2011 Car Mart Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. .....Petitioners versus Bombay Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Atul Rajyadhyaksha, Senior Advocate Ms.Sonam i/by Udwadia and Udeshi, for the petitioners. Mr.R.J.Cama i/by Mr.R.N.Tripathi & Co., for respondent No.1. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE: 10 th OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the interim order passed by the learned Arbitrator in Arbitration Proceedings No.501 of 2009. According to the petitioners, since they are not the members of the respondent Bank, the arbitration proceedings are not maintainable under the provisions of the Multi State Co-operative Banks Act. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent Bank has delayed the proceedings for more than a decade by initially approaching the wrong forum. Both the sides have led their evidence before the learned Arbitrator in the form of various affidavits. On behalf ssp 2 WP(L) 1934 of 2011 of the respondent Bank, an affidavit of the concerned officer has been filed showing as to how the petitioners are the members of the co-operative bank. On behalf of the petitioners, an application was submitted before the learned Arbitrator for allowing them to cross-examine the said officer of the respondent Bank. The said application was rejected by the learned Arbitrator by holding that both the parties were heard in the application and also on the ground that the petitioners have already filed written statement and relevant documents in support of their defence to justify their stand as to whether they are member or not. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that the petitioners are trying to stall and delay the proceedings on one pretext or the other for which a reply has been filed in the petition pointing out the conduct of the petitioners. In our view, this is not a case in which this Court would like to interfere with the matter at such an interlocutory stage, especially when it has been observed by the learned Arbitrator that since both the sides have led evidence by placing documentary evidence on record, ultimately Award is required to be pronounced on the basis of appreciation of documents on record. In case, the Award of the Arbitrator is against the petitioners, it will be open to them to raise this point by taking appropriate recourse against the said Award and the point raised in this petition can be ssp 3 WP(L) 1934 of 2011 taken in such proceedings. At such an interlocutory stage, we would not like to interfere with the order of the Arbitrator considering the reasoning of the Arbitrator and the affidavit-in-reply of the Bank. By leaving the point open as above, the above writ petition is rejected. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )