IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.116 of 2009. ARBITRATION PETITION NO.116 of 2009. ARBITRATION PETITION NO.116 of 2009. Rajnikant Dhirajlal Mehta ..Petitioner versus New India Co-op. Bank. Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.K.V.Tembe with Ms. Madhavi Nalawade for the petitioner Mr.V.T.Chavan for the respondents CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 24th March, 2009. DATED : 24th March, 2009. DATED : 24th March, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged the award dated 11.12.2008 under Section 84 of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. It is not in dispute that the present applicant was guarantor in respect of the loan transaction between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. The vehicle in the nature of Maruti Zen Car was hypothecated towards the loan agreement. According to the applicant while the loan amount was outstanding he had drawn attention of the respondent No.1 to the fact that the said vehicle can be seized and a part from the loan could be repaid out of that. According to the applicant, the bank did not take steps and that is how bank acted in negligent manner and that resulted in -2- discharging the surety i.e. the applicant in terms of Section 139 and 141 of the Indian Contract Act. 2. The learned Arbitrator has in terms observed that the bank is not negligent in the matter of seizing the vehicle. In my view, merely because the bank did not seize the vehicle that had no effect on the liability of the applicant. The bank could not seize the vehicle as it was not traceable particularly, when the vehicle was under the full control of the respondent No.2. The liability of the guarantor applicant was co-extensive with respondent No.2. In my view, non seizing of the vehicle by itself did not result in discharging the surety. The learned Arbitrator has taken correct view of the matter and has rightly arrived at the final conclusion. In my view, no interference is required under Article 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the impugned award and that the application under Section 34 is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence the Order. ORDER . Application is dismissed at the stage of admission. -3- (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)