1 wp 699.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 699 OF 2011 1. Vilas Kundanlal Lodha (Jain), Age : 54 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o At present residing at Lodha Hights 3rd Floor, Netaji Subhash Chowk, Ahmednagar. 2. Sumanbai Vilas Lodha, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o At present residing at Lodha Hights 3rd Floor, Netaji Subhash Chowk, Ahmednagar. 3. Mangalabai Prakash Lodha, Age : 47 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o At present residing at Lodha Hights 3rd Floor, Netaji Subhash Chowk, Ahmednagar. 4. Suresh Kundanmal Lodha, Age : 50 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o At present residing at Lodha Hights 3rd Floor, Netaji Subhash Chowk, Ahmednagar. .. .. Petitioners 2 wp 699.11 Versus 1. The Nashik Merchant Co-operative Bank Ltd., Nashik (Multi State Scheduled Bank) Administrative Office Plot No. A-16, Industrial Estate Babubhai Rathi Chowk, Satpur, Nashik - 7. 2. Ratnakar Anand Dasre, (Since Died) 3. Manikchand Mulchand Bhatewad, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Mahavir Nagar Savedi Road, Ahmednagar. 4. Kundanmal Mohanlal Lodha, (Since Died) 5. Mr. R. B. Shah, Age : Major, Occu. : Arbitrator, R/o Office of Arbitrator, Gangapur Naka, Nashik. .. .. Respondents Shri Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate h/f Shri L. B. Pallod, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri P. B. Vikhe Patil, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri A. M. Gholap, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 23RD JUNE, 2011. 3 wp 699.11 ORAL JUDGMENT : . At the outset, Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for petitioners seeks leave to delete respondent No. 5. Leave granted at the risk of petitioners. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 3. The respondent No. 1 preferred the dispute to the arbitrator. The present petitioners pursuant to the notices from the arbitrator appeared and filed an application Exhibit 36 before the arbitrator contending that in view of Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act the place of arbitration shall be as per the choice and convenience of the parties and the same should be at Ahmednagar. The said application is rejected. The petitioners have assailed the said order in the present petition. 4. Shri Kulkarni, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that the learned arbitrator has decided the application on a wrong assumption of law. The arbitrator was under impression that the reference of the arbitration is by operation of law and not by the agreement. So provisions of Section 20 would not be 4 wp 699.11 applicable, as such, has committed an error. According to the learned counsel, Ahmednagar would be a proper place for the arbitration proceedings. The parties reside there. The loan was disbursed to them for carrying on the business, as such, it would be proper place. 5. Shri Gholap, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supported the argument of Shri Kulkarni. 6. Shri Vikhe Patil, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 strenuously opposed the petition on the ground that it is the discretion of the arbitrator to fix the place of arbitration and the arbitration of the respondent No. 1 are conducted at Nashik. The arbitration at Ahmednagar would not be convenient for the respondent No. 1. No error is committed by the arbitrator while passing impugned order. 7. With the assistance of learned counsel, I have perused the impugned order. Perusal of the impugned order it is manifest that the arbitrator was under the impression that as the matter referred to him by the respondent No. 1, it is through the operation of statute, so the provisions of Section 20 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act would not be applicable. The 5 wp 699.11 same is an erroneous appreciation of law. After matter is referred to the arbitration under the provisions of Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, then the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act are applicable. In the light of that, the arbitrator is required to consider the application Exhibit 36. The arbitrator is required to consider the provisions of Section 20 of the Arbitration Act while dealing with the said application. The same has been decided dehors the said provisions. In the light of that, I quash and set aside the impugned order and relegate the parties to the arbitrator. The arbitrator shall decide the said application afresh keeping in mind provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. The Rule is accordingly partly made absolute, however, with no costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/June 11