*1* arbp.450.07.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.450 OF 2007 M/s Milestone Automobiles Pvt.Ltd. And others. ..Petitioners -Versus- Jaybharat Credit Limited and another. ..Respondents. .......... Mr.Pankaj Shah, for the Petitioners. Mr.Dilip Rai i/b Aruna Singh, for the Respondent No.1. .......... CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATE : 27th August, 2010. P.C. 1 This is a petition under Section 15 for appointment of the substitute arbitrator. 2 This arbitration petition deserves to be dismissed for more than one reason. 3 There is no dispute that the parties had entered into an agreement dated 12.07.2002 which contained an arbitration clause being Clause No.18. The disputes and differences between the parties were referred to the Arbitrator. The learned Arbitrator made and published the award on 29.07.2006. The Petitioner challenged the said award by filing Arbitration Petition No.464/2006. By an order and judgment dated 23.04.2007, Arbitration Petition No.464/2006 was disposed of. The learned Judge set aside the award. It is important to note that the learned Judge directed the same Arbitrator to hear the matter afresh. *2* arbp.450.07.sxw 4 The Petitioner did not object to the learned Judge directing the same Arbitrator to hear the matter afresh. The Petitioner did not even challenge the order in this regard. In the circumstances, it is not open for the Petitioner now to object by this petition to the Arbitrator proceeding with the reference. The order dated 23.04.2007 is binding on me. 5 Thereafter, on 08.09.2007 the Petitioner made an application under Section 12 before the learned Arbitrator challenging his appointment. The application was made on the basis that in the order dated 23.04.2007 it was held that the earlier award was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice inter-alia as the Petitioner had not been afforded a fair and reasonable opportunity to enable it to make a proper representation. It was contended that the same gives rise to justifiable doubts as to the Arbitrator’s independence and impartiality. 6 These grounds were available to the Petitioner when the order dated 23.04.2007 was passed. The Petitioner, as stated above, did not object to the order dated 23.04.2007. The Petitioner did not even challenge the judgment dated 23.04.2007 on this ground. It is now, therefore, not open for the Petitioner to raise these contentions by way of this petition. 7 The Petitioner has not even availed of the remedy under Section 12. 8 In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. -