Bombay High Court

SHREE SHANTINATH STEELSversusTHE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF ABHYUDAYA CO OP BANK LTD

Decided: 12 February 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SHARMILA U DESHMUKH

Holding

Section 84 of the Multi‑State Co‑operative Societies Act, being a non‑obstante provision, validly confers jurisdiction to the arbitrator to decide the loan‑default dispute and the SARFAESI and RDB statutes do not oust that jurisdiction.

Summary

The petitioners, members of Abhyudaya Co‑op Bank, defaulted on loan repayments and the bank referred the dispute to arbitration under Section 84 of the Multi‑State Co‑operative Societies Act, 2002, also invoking the SARFAESI Act for security enforcement. The arbitrator issued awards which the petitioners challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arguing that the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction and that recovery should proceed under the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act or SARFAESI. The Court held that Section 84 contains a non‑obstante clause granting exclusive arbitration jurisdiction, that the RDB Act itself permits a multi‑state co‑operative bank to opt for arbitration, and that the SARFAESI Act does not bar parallel arbitration proceedings. It further affirmed the arbitrator’s power to decide its own jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Arbitration Act. Consequently, the awards were upheld and the petitions dismissed.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 84 of the Multi‑State Co‑operative Societies Act to a loan‑default dispute involving a co‑operative bank.
Whether the arbitrator can decide on its own jurisdiction under the Arbitration Act.
The effect of the SARFAESI Act and the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act on the arbitration proceedings.
Whether the non‑obstante clause in Section 84 overrides other statutes.

Legislation cited

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — s. 16, 34
Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006
Multi‑State Co‑operative Societies Act, 2002 — s. 84
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 — s. 19, 1A, 1B
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 — s. 13, 35, 37

Subjects

Arbitration
Jurisdiction
Multi‑State Co‑operative Societies Act
SARFAESI Act
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act
Loan default
Section 34 challenge
Non‑obstante clause
Banking

Judgment

carbp-742-2025-group.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
by SHAGUFTA
QUTBUDDIN IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
SHAGUFTA PATHAN
QUTBUDDIN Date:
PATHAN 2026.02.12
17:43:38 COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 742 of 2025
+0530
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO.1785 OF 2026
IN
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 742 of 2025

A. Navinchandra Steel Private Limited,
Having registered o(ce at 704,
Ecstasy Commercial Building, City of Joy, ...Petitioner/
Nirmal Lifestyle, Jata Shankar Dosa Marg,
Applicant
Mulund (W), Mumbai - 400 080
Versus
1. Board of Directors of the Abhyudaya Co-Op.
Bank Limited,
Having its administrative o(ce at:
K.K. Tower, Abhyudaya Bank Lane,
O<. G.D. Ambedkar Marg,
Parel Village, Mumbai - 400 012

2. The Authorized O(cer,
Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank Ltd.,
Having its administrative o(ce at:
K.K. Tower, Abhyudaya Bank Lane,
O<. G.D. Ambedkar Marg,
Parel Village, Mumbai - 400 012

3. Shri V.N. Lothey (Patil)
Arbitrator, Appointed u/s 84 of
Multi-State Co-op Societies Act, 2002,
NM Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, ...Respondents
Mumbai 400 011

WITH
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO 200 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.478 OF 2026

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 1 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

IN
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO 200 OF 2025

1. Shree Shantinath Steels
706, Ecstasy Commercial Bldg, City of Joy,
Nirmal Life Style Ltd.,
Jata Shankar Dosa Marg,
...Petitioner
Mulund (West), Mumbai – 400080

2. Nilaben Rajesh Soni
Proprietor of Shree Shantinath Steels
706, Ecstasy Commercial Bldg, City of Joy,
Nirmal Life Style Ltd.,
Jata Shankar Dosa Marg,
Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080.
Versus
1. Board of Directors of the
Abhyudaya Co-Op. Bank Limited,
Having its administrative o(ce at:
K.K. Tower, Abhyudaya Bank Lane,
O<. G.D. Ambedkar Marg,
Parel Village, Mumbai - 400 012

2. The Authorized O(cer,
Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank Ltd.,
Having its administrative o(ce at:
K.K. Tower, Abhyudaya Bank Lane,
O<. G.D. Ambedkar Marg,
Parel Village, Mumbai - 400 012

3. V.N. Lothey (Patil)
Arbitrator, Appointed u/s 84 of
Multi-State Co-op Societies Act, 2002,
NM Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, ...Respondents
Mumbai 400 011

WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7412 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION NO 200 OF 2025

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 2 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

1. Nilaben Rajesh Soni
Proprietor of M/s. Shree Shantinath Steels
706, Ecstasy Commercial Bldg, City of Joy,
Nirmal Life Style Ltd.,
...Petitioner
Jata Shankar Dosa Marg,
Mulund (West), Mumbai-400080.
Versus
1. The Board of Directors of
Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank Limited,
Having its administrative o(ce at:
K.K. Tower, Abhyudaya Bank Lane,
O<. G.D. Ambedkar Marg,
Parel Village, Mumbai - 400 012

2. The Authorized O(cer,
Abhyudaya Co-op. Bank Ltd.,
Having its administrative o(ce at:
K.K. Tower, Abhyudaya Bank Lane,
O<. G.D. Ambedkar Marg,
Parel Village, Mumbai - 400 012

3. V.N. Lothey (Patil)
Arbitrator, Appointed u/s 84 of
Multi-State Co-op Societies Act, 2002,
NM Joshi Marg, Mahalaxmi, ...Respondents
Mumbai 400 011

——————
Mr. Mathews Nedumpara a/w. Ms. Hemali Kurne and Mr. Dayanand, for
the Petitioner.
Mr. Madhur Rai a/w. Sanjiv P., Mr. Durgesh Telang and Mr. Yogesh Mishra
i/b. PRS Legal, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
——————

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.
RESERVED : JANUARY 29, 2026
PRONOUNCED : FEBRUARY 12, 2026

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 3 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

JUDGMENT:

1. Both the Petitions Eled under Section 34 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, “the Arbitration Act”) challenges the

Award passed by the learned Arbitrator appointed under Section 84 of

the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 (for short, “the MSCS

Act”). Commercial Arbitration Petition No 200 of 2025 challenges the

Award dated 3rd July, 2023 passed in Arbitration Case No

ARB/ACB/VNL/2063 of 2021 and Commercial Arbitration Petition No

742 of 2025 challenges the Award dated 5th December, 2022 passed in

Arbitration Case No ARB/ACB/VNL/2055 of 2021. Common submissions

were canvassed and both the Petitions are being disposed of by this

common judgment.

2. Considering that submissions canvassed were conEned to legal

submissions and did not assail the Endings of fact and rightly so in view

of the restrictive scope of Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation

Act, 1996, this Court has not referred to the facts of the case. Su(ce

for our purpose is to state that by reason of default in repayment of

Enancial assistance availed by the Petitioners, the Respondent Bank

had invoked the provisions of Section 84 of Multi- State Co-operative

Societies Act, 2002 and referred the Dispute to the arbitration of

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 4 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

Learned Arbitrator leading to passing of the impugned Awards. In

addition, the Respondent bank also invoked the provisions of The

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement

of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “Sarfaesi Act”) for

enforcement of security of mortgaged property.

3. The Endings of the learned Arbitrator can be broadly

summarized as under :-

(i) There is no dispute about availing of Enancial facilities and default

occurred in payment of outstanding dues.

(ii) The Petitioner is a member of the bank and therefore the dispute

under Section 84 of the MSCS Act is maintainable before the Tribunal.

(iii) The provision of sub Section 3 of Section 84 of MSCS Act empowers

the arbitral tribunal to decide whether any particular dispute is

entertainable before the Tribunal and for appointment of Tribunal no

consent of the parties is required as the same is statutory arbitration.

(iv) The MSCS Act prevails over the Sarfaesi Act and if the opponents

are aggrieved against the measures adopted by the bank under

Section 13 of the Sarfaesi Act, the provision of Section 17 of the

Sarfaesi Act provides the remedy.

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 5 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

4. Mr. Nedumpara, learned counsel for the Petitioner would assail

the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator to decide the Dispute under Section

84 of the MSCS Act in view of the provisions of The Recovery of Debts

and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (for short, “RDB Act”) and Sarfaesi Act.

According to him, it is the central legislation which will govern the

proceedings for recovery of debts as banking is relatable to Entry 45 of

List I of Seventh Schedule of Constitution of India. He points out to the

stated object of the MSCS Act to contend that the object is the

governance of co-operative societies and to consolidate and amend the

law relating thereto. He submits that in contradistinction the

provisions of the Sarfaesi Act and the RDB Act have been enacted with

the stated object of adjudication and recovery of debts due to banks

and Enancial institutions and matters connected thereto. To buttress

the submission that recourse can be taken only to the provisions of

RDB Act for recovery of dues by banks and Enancial institutions, he

points out the provisions of Section 17 and Section 19 of the RDB Act.

Drawing support from the said provisions, he contends that the proper

procedure has been provided under the RDB Act and the dispute in the

present case is in the realm of recovery of money, MSCS Act has no

application.

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 6 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

5. He submits that recovery of debt is permitted under the Sarfaesi

Act, and the RDB Act and it is desirable that the recovery procedure be

initiated in one forum. He submits that the Respondent Bank has

invoked multiple jurisdiction as it has approached the Arbitrator under

Section 84 of MSCS Act, Eled application under Sarfaesi Act and has

also invoked Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code for declaring insolvency

of the Petitioners. He submits that under the Micro, Small and Medium

Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (for short, “MSME Act”), a

mechanism is provided for resolution of distressed industries and the

notiEcation dated 29th May, 2015 provides for revival and rehabilitation

by formation of committee.

6. He would further submit that the MSCS Act has been enacted by

the Parliament in exercise of powers under Article 252 of the

Constitution of India and has acted as a delegatee of State Legislature.

He submits that the subject of banking is relatable to Entry 45 of List I

and co-operative societies is relatable to Entry 32 of List II of Seventh

Schedule of Constitution of India. He submits that the Respondent

Bank being co-operative bank, its banking activity is governed by law

enacted under Entry 45 of List I i.e RDB Act and Sarfaesi Act

considering the doctrine of pith and substance and to other operations

apart from banking activities, laws enacted by the State Legislature will

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 7 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

apply. He submits that therefore it is the RDB Act which will apply and

not MSCS Act.

7. He would assail the Learned Arbitrator’s Ending on its

jurisdiction and would submit that the Arbitrator being appointed

under the statute could not decide a challenge to its own jurisdiction.

In support, he relies upon the decision in the case of Vidya Drolia and

Ors. Durga Trading Corporation1.

8. Per contra, Mr. Rai, learned counsel for the Respondents would

submit that under the provisions of section 84(2) of the MSCS Act, the

dispute can be referred to arbitration as it is a dispute touching the

business of the Society i.e. the recovery of loan. He would further point

out that the learned Arbitrator has considered the arguments of the

Petitioner that the Arbitrator cannot decide the challenge to its own

jurisdiction and has held that the appointment of Arbitrator is under

Section 84 by the Central Registrar which does not contemplate any

consent of the parties. He would further submit that the objection that

the Arbitrator cannot rule on its own jurisdiction has been rejected.

He would further point out that the learned Arbitrator has held that

once the party has obtained loan and has become member of the bank,

1 (2019) 20 SCC 406

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 8 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

both the parties are bound by the provisions of MSCS Act being a

special Act.

9. He would further submit that in the action taken under Section

13 of the Sarfaesi Act, is for the purpose of securitisation of the

Enancial assets and enforcement of security interest and not for

recovery of debt. He submits that in view of Section 84 of MSCS Act, it

is not necessary to approach the Tribunal under the RDB Act. He would

submit that Section 37 of the Sarfaesi Act provides that the provisions

of Sarfaesi Act are in addition to the other laws.

10. Rival contentions now fall for determination:

11. The Respondent Bank is a Multi-State Co-operative Society

registered under the provisions of MSCS Act and carries on business of

banking. The MSCS Act is a self contained legislation providing the

mechanism for redressal of disputes under Section 84 of MSCS Act.

RDB Act facilitates the recovery of dues by banks and Enancial

institutions under the aegis of Tribunal established under the Statute

without being burdened by the technicalities of Civil Procedure Code.

Sarfaesi Act enables the banks, Enancial institutions and other secured

creditors to recover their dues without intervention of Courts or

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 9 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

Tribunals. The contention of Mr. Nedumpara is that the mechanism of

arbitration contained in MSCS Act gets excluded when the multi State

co-operative banks seeks to recover the dues in which case the

exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Tribunal under the RDB Act or

Sarfeasi Act which are central legislations. The issue as to whether

co-operative banks which are co-operative societies also are governed

by Schedule VII List I Entry 45 or List II Entry 32 of Constitution of India

and to what extent came up for consideration before the Constitution

Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Pandurang Ganpati Chaugule vs

Vishwasrao Patil Murgud Sahakari Bank Ltd2. The moot question was

the applicability of Sarfaesi Act to co-operative banks. The Hon’ble

Apex Court a(rmed that Sarfaesi Act will also apply to co-operative

banks and Parliament was competent to amend Section 2(c) of Sarfaesi

Act by adding sub-clause (iva) a multi State Co-operative bank. The

Hon’ble Apex Court examined the scope of legislative Eeld covered by

Entry 45 of List I i.e Banking and Entry 32 of List II of Seventh Schedule

of Constitution of India to hold that multi state level co-operative

societies registered under MSCS Act with respect to banking are

governed by legislation related to Entry 45 of List I of Seventh

Schedule of Constitution of India. It held that recovery of debt would

be an essential function of banking institution and Parliament can

2 (2020) 9 SCC 215

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 10 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

enact law under List I Entry 45 and it is open for Parliament to provide

remedy under Section 13 of Sarfaesi Act. Co-operative bank’s entire

operation and act of banking are governed by law enacted under List I

Entry 45 i.e. Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and Reserve Bank of India

Act under Entry 38 of List I. It held that no conLict has been created by

providing additional procedure under Section 13 of Sarfaesi Act and it

is open for bank to adopt procedure which it may choose.

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court thus upheld the legislative competence

of the Parliament to provide the additional procedure for recovery

under Section 13 of Sarfaesi Act and held that the provisions of Section

2(1)(c)(iva) adding multi state co-operative bank is not ultra vires. Even

if it is held that recovery of debts is banking activity and Parliament has

the legislative competence to enact law and has enacted the law, the

question is whether the provisions of MSCS Act are excluded for

seeking recovery of debts and exclusive jurisdiction is under RDB Act.

The answer to this question can be found in the RDB Act itself. The

statutory provision of RDB Act does not place an absolute embargo on

the mechanism provided under the MSCS Act and on the contrary,

admits of the right of a multi State co-operative society to initiate

proceedings under MSCS Act to recover debts. By amendment Act 1 of

2013, the RDB Act came to be amended and sub section (1A) and (1B)

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 11 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

came to be introduced in Section 19 of RDB Act, which governs the

procedure for recovery of debt by a bank or Enancial institution by

approaching the Tribunal established under the RDB Act. Sub sections

(1A) and (1B) of Section 19 reads as under:

“(1A) Every bank, being multi State co-operative bank referred to in sub

clause (vi) of clause (d) of Section 2, may at its option, opt to initiate

proceedings under the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002(39 of

2002) to recover debts, whether due before or after the date of

commencement of the Enforcement of the Security Interest and Recovery

of Debts Laws (Amendment) Act, 2012 from any person instead of making

an application under this Chapter.

1B. In case, a bank being, multi State co-operative bank referred to in sub-

clause (vi) of clause (d) of Section 2 has Eled an application under this

Chapter and subsequently opts to withdraw the application for the

purpose of initiating proceeding under the Multi-State Co-operative

Societies Act, 2002(39 of 2002) to recover debts, it may do so with the

permission of the Tribunal and every such application seeking permission

from the Tribunal to withdraw the application made under sub-section (1A)

shall be dealt with by it as expeditiously as possible and disposed of within

thirty days from the date of such application.

Provided that in case the Tribunal refuses to grant permission for

withdrawal of the application Eled under this sub-section, it shall pass such

orders after recording the reasons therefor.”

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 12 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

13. The amendment gives an option to multi-State co-operative

bank deEned in Section 2(vi)(d) of RDB Act to initiate the proceeding

under MSCS Act instead of approaching the Tribunal for recovery of its

debts. Even accepting that the business of banking is covered by

legislations relatable to Entry 45 of List I of Seventh Schedule to the

Constitution of India, the central legislation i.e. RDB Act itself permits

the Respondent No 1 Bank to choose the mechanism of recovery

provided under the MSCS Act. It is only where the application is Erst

Eled before the Tribunal under RDB Act and thereafter the bank seeks

to exercise the option to initiate proceedings under MSCS Act, that the

Tribunal is required to consider whether permission should be granted

or not. In the present case, the Respondent Bank has chosen to initiate

proceedings under the MSCS Act, instead of approaching the Tribunal,

which cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. As the option is made

available by the statute itself, it cannot be accepted that the exclusive

jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal constituted under the RDB Act and

Arbitrator had no jurisdiction under Section 84 of MSCS Act.

14. It is also pertinent to note that Section 84 of the MSCS Act is

prefaced with non obstante clause which provides that notwithstanding

anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, if any

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 13 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

dispute touching the constitution, management, or business of a multi-

state co-operative society arises among the classes set out in clause (a)

to (d) of sub Section (1) of Section 84, the same shall be referred to

arbitration. The non obstante clause gives overriding e<ect if there is

anything inconsistent with any other law. Sub clause (a) of sub Section

(2) of Section 84 provides that a claim by the multi-state co-operative

society for any debt or demand due to it from a member is deemed to

be a dispute touching the constitution, management or business of the

multi-state co-operative society. Though initially it was sought to be

contended by Mr. Nedumpura, that the Petitioner is not a member of

the Society, upon instruction, he would fairly concede that, the

Petitioner is a member of the Respondent Bank. In any event there is

Ending of fact by the Learned Arbitrator that the Respondent Bank has

placed on record the documents of membership application form

signed by the Petitioners. The Respondent being a society carrying on

business of banking, the advancing or recovery of debt due to it

constitutes business of the society and claim of multi state co-

operative society for any debt or demand due to it from its member is

squarely covered by Section 84 of MSCS Act. There is no provision of

MSME Act pointed out which mandates the applicability of MSME Act

before adopting remedy under Section 84 of MSCS Act.

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 14 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

15. Section 84(5) of MSCS Act makes applicable to the provisions of

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to arbitration under Section 84

of MSCS Act unless provided otherwise. Section 16 of the Arbitration

and Conciliation Act, 1996 Act provides that the arbitral tribunal is

competent to rule on its jurisdiction and accordingly the Arbitrator in

the present case has upheld its jurisdiction to decide the Dispute. I

am therefore not inclined to accept the submission that the learned

Arbitrator could not have ruled upon its own jurisdiction.

16. Dealing next with the objection that having invoked Section 13

of Sarfaesi Act for recovery of its dues, it was not open for Respondent

bank to initiate proceedings under MSCS Act, the position is settled

that Section 37 of Sarfaesi Act does not bar the application of other

laws. Section 35 of Sarfaesi Act provides for over-riding e<ect of

Sarfaesi, which will apply only in event conLict is demonstrated. In

present case, no conLict is demonstrated between MSCS Act and

Sarfaesi Act. in Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited vs Deccan

Chronicle Holdings Limited & Ors. 3, one of the issues before the

Hon’ble Apex Court was whether the provisions of Sarfaesi Act can be

invoked by the amalgamated company when the original lender does

not fall within the purview of Sarfaesi Act but the amalgamated

3 (2018) 14 SCC 783

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 15 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

company does and whether the invocation of arbitration proceedings

bars the initiation of proceedings under Sarfaesi Act. The Hon’ble Apex

Court on the aspect of simultaneous application of the Arbitration Act

and Sarfaesi Act held that Sarfaesi Act is a special enactment which

provides speedy remedy to the banks and Enancial institution and

merely because steps are taken under the Arbitration Act which is

statute of general nature would not mean that remedy under the

special statute is foreclosed. It noted the decision in Transcore vs

Union of India & Anr.4, which had rejected the applicability of doctrine

of election and held that the Enancial institution is not precluded form

taking steps under Sarfaesi Act simply because it has availed remedy

under RDB Act. It noted that Sarfaesi Act was enacted to regulate

securitisation and reconstruction of Enancial assets and enforcement

of security interest and matters connected therein. Liquidation of

secured interest through a more expeditious procedure is what has

been envisaged. Sarfaesi proceedings are in the nature of enforcement

proceedings while arbitration is an adjudicatory process. In M.D Frozen

Foods Exports Pvt Ltd & Ord vs Hero Fincorp Ltd. 5 it was held that

Sarfaesi and arbitration proceedings can go hand in hand and one

remedy does not bar the other. The judicial pronouncements re-

inforces and reiterates the complementary existence of Sarfaesi with
4 (2008) 1 SCC 125
5 (2017) 16 SCC 741

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 16 of 17
carbp-742-2025-group.doc

other enactment pertaining to recovery of debts due to banks and

Enancial institutions.

17. The enforcement of security interest by invoking the provisions

of Sarfaesi Act cannot be pressed into service to oust the jurisdiction of

Arbitrator under Section 84 of MSCS Act, which is an adjudicatory

process. The impetus is to provide speedy and expeditious procedure

for recovery of debts and there is no prohibition demonstrated from

the MSCS Act or Sarfaesi Act against initiation of proceedings under

one enactment upon proceedings being initiated under the other

enactment. There is no relevance shown of the decision of Vidya

Drolia & Ors (supra) concerning the issue of certain disputes being non

arbitrable in context of present proceedings.

18. In light of the above discussion, there is no warrant for

interference with the Awards dated 5th December, 2022 and 3rd July,

2023. Resultantly the Petitions fail and stands dismissed.

19. Interim Applications do not survive for consideration and stands

dismissed.

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

Vishal Parekar/SQ Pathan 17 of 17

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.