JUDGMENT - S.M. JHUNJHUNUWALA, J.:---By this petition, the petitioners seek to set aside the Award dated 2nd March, 1991 filed in this Court and numbered as Award No. 70 of 1991. 2. The petitioners are wholesale dealers in Textile piece goods. The 1st respondents are a textile mill manufacturing and selling, inter alia, textile piece goods. The 1st respondents are members of The Millownors Association Bombay who have been made 2nd respondents in the petition in the name of The Bombay Millowners Association and hence hereinafter described as the 2nd respondents. The 2nd respondents have framed rules for resolving disputes arising out of any contract for sale and purchase of Indian piece goods or yarn entered into between a member and a non-member through arbitration. The 3rd respondent had acted as arbitrator in the disputes between the 1st respondents and the petitioners which were referred to arbitration in accordance with rules for Arbitration on Indian piece goods and yarn of the 2nd respondents. 3. The petitioners had purchased textile piece goods from the 1st respondents on the terms and conditions mentioned in the contracts in writing signed and executed by and between the petitioners and the 1st respondents from time to time. Besides the terms mentioned and printed in such contracts entered by and between the petitioners and the respondents, the petitioners had agreed to abide by the Terms and Conditions of the Standard Contract Form for Sale of cotton piece goods for the inland market adopted and recommended by the 2nd respondents which inter alia provides for reference of disputes to arbitration in accordance with rules of arbitration regulating arbitrations with respect to piece goods. 4. In respect of various transactions of sales of textile piece goods effected by the 1st respondents to the petitioners, according to the 1st respondents, the sum of Rs. 3,48,322/- for principal and Rs. 39,009/- for interest, aggregating to Rs. 3,87,331/- was found due and payable by the petitioners to the 1st respondents as on 31st March, 1990, the liability in respect whereof was disputed by the petitioners. According to the 1st respondents, the petitioners were further liable to pay the sum of Rs. 2,49,084/- to the 1st respondents for overdue interest in respect of earlier sales of textile piece goods effected by the 1st respondents to the petitioners, the liability in respect whereof was also disputed by the petitioners. According to the 1st respondents, the petitioners were further liable to pay the sum of Rs. 2,49,084/- to the 1st respondents for overdue interest in respect of earlier sales of textile piece goods effected by the 1st respondents to the petitioners, the liability in respect whereof was also disputed by the petitioners. On 11th May, 1990, the 1st respondents after due notice to the petitioners referred disputes and differences which had arisen by and between the 1st respondents and the petitioners to arbitration in accordance with the rules for arbitrations of 2nd respondents regulating arbitrations with respect to piece goods and appointed the 3rd respondent to act as arbitrator on behalf of the 1st respondents. By their letter dated 19th July, 1990 addressed to the petitioners, the 2nd respondents, inter alia, intimated to the petitioners that in accordance with rules for arbitration of the 2nd respondents regulating arbitrations with respect to piece goods, the petitioners were required to appoint their arbitrator and requested the petitioners to appoint their arbitrator within fifteen days of the receipt thereof by the petitioners. By the said letter, the petitioners were also intimated that in the event of the petitioners not appointing their arbitrator within the said period of fifteen days, the disputes would stand referred to the arbitrator already appointed by the 1st respondents as sole-arbitrator and any award which he would make would be final and binding on both the petitioners and 1st respondents. The said letter was delivered to the petitioners on 24th July, 1990. The petitioners failed to appoint their arbitrator and as per the said rules of arbitration of the 2nd respondents, disputes stood referred to the 3rd respondent as the sole arbitrator who was requested to fix the date, time and place for the first hearing of the reference. By their letter dated 23rd October, 1990 addressed to the petitioners, the 2nd respondents intimated the petitioners about it. In the said arbitration reference, the 3rd respondent has made and published his Award dated 2nd March, 1991 directing the petitioners to pay to the 1st respondents the sum of -- Rs. 2,67, 620/- in full and final settlement of the claims and counter-claims of both the parties against each other in respect of 17 contracts/indents covered by the said arbitration reference as also the arbitration charges. 2,67, 620/- in full and final settlement of the claims and counter-claims of both the parties against each other in respect of 17 contracts/indents covered by the said arbitration reference as also the arbitration charges. The said Award has been filed in this Court and numbered as Award No. 70 of 1991. The petitioners have filed the present petition to have the said Award set aside by this Court. 5. Though several grounds have been taken by the petitioners in the petition to challenge the said Award, Mr. Shah, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has stated before me that the petitioners were restricting their challenge to the said Award only as per contentions raised by the petitioners in sub-para (c) of paragraph 19 of the petition. The rest of the grounds of challenge to the said Award were not pressed and as such given up by the learned Counsel for the petitioners. 6. Mr. Shah has submitted that by their letter dated 26th November, 1990 addressed to the 2nd respondents, the 1st respondents withdrew the said reference filed against the petitioners and as such, the 3rd respondent became functus officio and ceased to have jurisdiction to arbitrate. Mr. Shah has further submitted that all further proceedings in the said reference were without jurisdiction and as such, void and illegal. Mr. Shah has also submitted that by proceeding with the said reference after the 1st respondents addressing the said letter dated 26th November, 1990 to the 2nd respondents, the 3rd respondent has misconducted himself and as such, the said Award is bad in law and liable to be set aside. 7. Ms. Joshi, the learned Advocate for the 1st respondents, has submitted that the petitioners through their partner had discussions with the representative of the 1st respondents after the 1st respondents referring their disputes to arbitration and had agreed to make payment of the amount due by the petitioners to the 1st respondents by 31st March, 1991 in instalments. She has further submitted that on the petitioners making payment of the amount due by the petitioners to the 1st respondents by 31st March, 1991 in instalments as agreed by the petitioners, the 1st respondents were to withdraw the said reference and till then, further proceedings in the said reference were to be kept in abeyance. Ms. She has further submitted that on the petitioners making payment of the amount due by the petitioners to the 1st respondents by 31st March, 1991 in instalments as agreed by the petitioners, the 1st respondents were to withdraw the said reference and till then, further proceedings in the said reference were to be kept in abeyance. Ms. Joshi has also submitted that though the letter dated 26th November, 1990 was prepared and a copy whereof was handed over to the petitioners to assure the petitioners that on the petitioners making payment of the dues of the 1st respondents by 31st March, 1991 the 1st respondents would withdraw the said reference, the said letter was never delivered or handed over to the 2nd respondents since the petitioners did not pay the first instalment payable on the date of the said letter and as such, the said reference was never withdrawn by the 1st respondents. Ms. Joshi has further submitted that since the petitioners failed to pay the amount due and payable by the petitioners to the 1st respondents, the question of 1st respondents withdrawing the said reference did not arise. Ms. Joshi has also submitted that the 3rd respondent had the jurisdiction to arbitrate and did not misconduct himself or the proceedings before him by proceeding to hear the said reference and making the said Award. 8. The hearing of the said reference was fixed before the 3rd respondent on 7th November, 1990. On that date, the 1st respondents were present before the 3rd respondent but the petitioners had remained absent. The representative of the 1st respondents had put up the case of the 1st respondents before the 3rd respondent. Since the 1st respondents expressed desire to make further effort to settle the matter amicably with the petitioners, hearing on 7th November, 1990 was adjourned. Since then, the 1st respondents deputed their marketing manager, one Mr. Nair to the petitioners for settlement of their claim against the petitioners. The petitioners though assured payment did not pay any amount to the 1st respondents and as such, the 1st respondents felt that the petitioners were not interested in settlement as originally indicated. The 1st respondents, therefore, chose not to withdraw the said reference filed against the petitioners and did not deliver or hand over the said letter dated 26th November, 1990 to the 2nd respondents. The 1st respondents, therefore, chose not to withdraw the said reference filed against the petitioners and did not deliver or hand over the said letter dated 26th November, 1990 to the 2nd respondents. The said reference filed by the 1st respondents against the petitioners was factually not withdrawn by the 1st respondents. On the contrary, on 23rd January, 1991, the 1st respondents addressed a letter to the 2nd respondents to proceed with the said reference. On 28th January, 1991, the 2nd respondents addressed a letter to the petitioners, inter alia, intimating the petitioners about 2nd respondents receiving the said letter dated 23rd January, 1991 from the 1st respondents to proceed with the hearing of the said reference. By the said letter, the petitioners were informed by the 2nd respondents that further hearing of the said reference was fixed on 8th February, 1991 at 3.30 p.m. in the office of 2nd respondent and requested the petitioners to appear before the 3rd respondent at the said hearing either by themselves or through their authorised representative. By the said letter, the petitioners were further informed that in the event of failure of appearance of the petitioners, the 3rd respondent would proceed ex-parte against the petitioners. These letters support the case of the 1st respondents that the said reference was in fact not withdrawn by the 1st respondents. 9. In the facts and circumstances, I hold that the said reference filed by the 1st respondents against the petitioners was not withdrawn by the 1st respondents and the 3rd respondent continued to have jurisdiction to arbitrate. The 3rd respondent had not become functus officio prior to making of the said Award in the said reference and that he had neither misconducted himself or the proceedings before him. The said Award is valid, legal and binding both on the petitioners and the 1st respondents. The petition being frivolous and vexatious deserves to be dismissed. In the result the petition is dismissed with costs. In view of dismissal of the petition, Ms. Joshi applies for pronouncement of judgment and passing of decree in terms of the said Award under Rule 787(5) of the Rules of this Court as applicable on its Original side. In exercise of my discretion, I pronounce the judgment and pass decree in terms of the said Award dated 2nd March, 1991 filed in this Court and numbered as Award No. 70 of 1991. In exercise of my discretion, I pronounce the judgment and pass decree in terms of the said Award dated 2nd March, 1991 filed in this Court and numbered as Award No. 70 of 1991. Petition dismissed. *****