JUDGMENT - A.A. CAZI, J.:---The petitioners seek to set aside Award No. 61 of 1990. For this purpose, it is urged : (i) that there was no arbitration agreement between the parties and (ii) that this was a ready delivery contract which means that the delivery must be made within 11 days and there cannot be any extension and if there is an extension then it is illegal and, therefore, an arbitration in respect of any illegal agreement would itself be null and void. 2. It is undisputed that there was an agreement dated 16th November 1983 between the petitioners and the respondents. That agreement begins with the words: "He confirm having SOLD to you subject to the Bye-Laws of East India Cotton Association Ltd., Bombay, as under : ..............." The signature portion on behalf of the respondents reads : "For East India Company Sd/- Partner." There appears to be a signature of the partner at the place for the signature. The signature portion on behalf of the petitioners read's : "For Madhu Spg. Wvg. Mills (P) Ltd., Sd/- Administrative Officer." It purports to be signed at the relevant place. 3. Under the By-laws 38(a) of the East India Cotton Association Ltd., it is provided in Clause (b) as follows : "(b) cotton contracts (whether forward or ready and whether between members or between a member and a non-member) made subject to these By-laws or subject to E.I.C.A. arbitration or containing words or abbreviations to a similar effect including any dispute as to the existence of such transaction provided in the latter case the parties had agreed in writing before entering into business relation that any dispute arising between them out of that agreement or any such transactions that may be entered into including any dispute as to the existence of such transaction shall be referred to arbitration under the By-laws of the Association." The respondents are members of the East India Cotton Association Ltd. The petitioners are not members of the East India Cotton Association Ltd. However, it will be seen from the portion of the contract reproduced above that Clause (b) of By-law 38(A) comes into application. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention that there was non arbitration agreement between the parties. 4. There is, therefore, no substance in the contention that there was non arbitration agreement between the parties. 4. As regards the second contention, it arises on a question of fact as to whether there has been an extension or no extension and that raises a dispute between the parties which the arbitrators are fully entitled to decide. 5. In the circumstances, I see no merits in this Arbitration petition and hence the same is summarily dismissed. Order accordingly. -----