1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6413 OF 2009 Satish s/o. Sitaram Deshmukh Age 43 years, Occ. Government Contractor R/o. Dnyanai, Plot No. 125, Saraswati Colony NO.2, Georai District Beed. .. petitioners Versus 1] Dagdu s/o. Baburao Murkhte Age 73 years, Occ. Pensioner, R/o. Pipe line Road, Behind Bharat Godown, Ahmednagar, District Ahmednagar. 2] The Executive Engineer, Jaikwadi Irrigation Division Nathnagar (North) Paithan, District Aurangabad. .. Respondent. --- Mr. A.K. Gawali, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for the respondent NO.1. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 17th December, 2009. PER COURT :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th April, 2009 vide which the application filed by the respondent No.1 herein was allowed and the petitioner, so also, the respondent No.2 were directed to pay Rs. 86,250/- each, to the respondent No.1 alongwith interest @ 6% from the date of the order of the Additional District Judge. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 18/6/2009, vide which the application filed by the present respondent NO.1, permitting him to withdraw the amount, subject to payment of bank guarantee is allowed. 3] The respondent No.1 was appointed as a sole arbitrator for a dispute between the present petitioner and the respondent No.2. The award in the said arbitration proceeding was declared on 6/6/2001. The present respondent NO.1 filed an application, seeking direction from the learned District Court, for direction to the parties to pay Rs. 1,68,500/- alongwith interest. Vide order dated 28th April, 2009, the application filed by the respondent No.1 bearing MARJI NO. 408/2008 was allowed as aforesaid. 4] It is also not in dispute that an amount of Rs. 1,68,000/- has been deposited by the petitioner as well as the respondent NO.2 in pursuance to the directions issued by the learned District Judge. 5] Though the learned counsel for the parties have addressed the court on merits of the matter, I do not find it necessary to go into the said issues, inasmuch as, the respondent No.1 who is personally present in this court, has agreed to accept an amount of Rs. 1 Lakh towards his fees. 3 . In that view of the matter, the petition stands disposed of, by modifying the order dated 28th April, 2009, to the effect that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are liable to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each towards the full and final settlement of the fees of the respondent NO.1 herein. Out of the amount deposited by the petitioner and the respondent NO.2 before the learned District Judge,Aurangabad,the respondent NO.1 would be at liberty to withdraw an amount of Rs. 50,000/-. The remaining amount is permitted to be withdrawn by the petitioner and the respondent NO.2. Rule is disposed of in aforesaid terms. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/-