JUDGMENT There are two applications: One, by Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. for supersession of the reference on the ground that there is no arbitration agreement at all between Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. and R. Saraogi and Company. There is also another application by the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. for modification and/or variation of order dated 22nd December, 1993 because within the time limit mentioned in the order dated 22nd December, 1993, it was not possible for the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. to form a new Arbitration Sub-Committee consisting of members other than those who passed the earlier Award and complete the Arbitration proceedings. In view of the various guidelines issued by the Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI). The Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. mentioned the matter on 29th April, 1994 and prayed for modification and/or variation of order dated 22nd December, 1993. However, it was directed that the Association should make a formal application. Accordingly the instant application for modification has been made by a petition verified by an affidavit affirmed by Pravat Kr. Dey on 10th June, 1994 for modification and/or variation of the order dated 22nd December, 1993 in the manner mentioned in paragraph 13 thereof. The operative portion of the said order dated 22nd December, 1993 is set out: "In that view of the matter it is ordered that the award filed in this proceeding stands quashed and set aside. Let the Arbitration subcommittee consisting of members other than those who have heard the matter on the earlier occasion be constituted by the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. within two weeks from date. The newly constituted Sub-Committee will hear parties on the basis of the documents already filed. It will be open, however, to the parties to file any fresh documents if they are so advised. Such documents are to be filed within two weeks after notice is received by the parties regarding the constitution of such Sub-Committee. Such Sub-Committee will be constituted by 15th January, 1994. Such documents will be filed by 31st January 1994 and the hearing of the disputes will commence from 7th February, 1994. If necessary, day to day hearing will be taken and the proceedings will be concluded by 30th June, 1994. In the event of any adjournment is granted, the next date will be intimated to the parties on the very sitting of Arbitration itself. If necessary, day to day hearing will be taken and the proceedings will be concluded by 30th June, 1994. In the event of any adjournment is granted, the next date will be intimated to the parties on the very sitting of Arbitration itself. The application is thus disposed of. Costs cost in the arbitration proceedings. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the order on the usual undertaking." 2. Uma Sankar Goenka H.U.F. opposed the application of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. and also made an application for supersession of the reference on the ground that there is not arbitration agreement at all between Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. and R. Saraogi & Company. 3. Following grounds have been taken in support of the contention by Uma Shankar Goenka in both the applications: 1. The Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. cannot make the application for modification and/or variation of the order dated 22nd December, 1993 in view of the fact that the Calcutta Stock Exchange Ass0ciation Ltd. is in no way connected with dispute between itself and R. Saraogi & Company. From the said application it is evident that the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. is taking the side of R. Saraogi & Company. 2. The application made by the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd., is not maintainable in law in view of the fact that for enlarging the time to make the award, an application under s. 28 of the Arbitration Act has to be made. 3. The Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. cannot hold any arbitration because under Chapter XVI of the Bye-Laws and Regulations of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd., only a claim between a member and a non-member can be referred to the arbitration of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. A non-member is a person who shares brokerage with another member. Since Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. does not share any brokerage with R. Saraogi & Company, who is a member of the Calcutta Stock Exchange, the alleged dispute between Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. and R. Saraogi & Company cannot be referred to the arbitration of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. In fact, there is no dispute between Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. and R. Saraogi & Company. 4. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd., on the other hand, that the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. is not taking the side either of Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. or R. Saraogi & Company. The said position has been made amply clear by the learned Counsel of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. The Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. made the application for modification and/or verification of the order dated 22nd December, 1993- because by the order dated 22nd December, 1993 a responsibility was cast upon the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. The following directions were given to Calcutta Stock Exchange: (a) The Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. was to form an Arbitration Sub-Committee to adjudicate upon the disputes between Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. and R. Saraogi & Company consisting of members other than those members who heard on the last occasion, within two weeks from 22nd December, 1993. (b) The newly constituted Sub-Committee would have to hear the parties on the basis of the documents already filed. If fresh documents are to be filed, such new documents would have to be filed within two weeks. (c) The Arbitration Sub-Committee would be constituted by 15th January, 1994. (d) Documents are to be filed by 31st January, 1994. (e) The Arbitration Sub-Committee would commence hearing of dispute from 7th January, 1994 and the proceedings would have to be concluded by 30th January, 1994. 5. Thus, when in view of SEBI Guidelines, it was not possible for the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. to form the new Arbitration Sub-Committee and complete the arbitration proceedings within the time frame laid down by me, the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. had no other alternative but to bring the aforesaid facts to the knowledge of this Court and prayed for extension of time accordingly. Otherwise, it might have been contended that the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd deliberately flouted the order of this Court or failed to carry out the directions given by this Court. Otherwise, it might have been contended that the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd deliberately flouted the order of this Court or failed to carry out the directions given by this Court. The application by the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. was made for no other reason but to apprise the Court that the failure on the part of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. to carry out the directions given by this Court by its order dated 22nd December, 1993 was not intentional and deliberate but because of reasons beyond the control of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. 6. Since the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. could not constitute the Arbitration Committee in view of SEBI guideline the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. filed the application for modification of the order and for extension of time. 7. It has been contended on behalf of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. that the said application was made for no other reason but to apprise the Court that the failure of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. to carry out the direction given by this Court by its order dated 22nd December 1993 was not intentional and deliberate but because of reasons beyond the control of Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. 8. It appears that the Arbitration Committee was reconstituted on 11th March, 1994 and thereafter the matter was mentioned on behalf of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. on 28th April, 1994 since the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. could not constitute the Arbitration Sub-Committee within the time stipulated in my order dated 22nd December, 1993 as it had to complete the various formalities under the SEBI guidelines. The fact that the difficulties were faced by Calcutta' Stock Exchange Association Ltd. in constituting the said Arbitration Sub-Committee within time in view of the SEBI guidelines has been mentioned in the petition filed on behalf of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. The said facts are within the special knowledge of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. only and as such the decision of Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd., which alone can make such an application, view to apply for modification in the light of the difficulties faced by it. In the application made by the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. it not only prayed for extension of time but also applied for regularisations of the formation of the Arbitration Sub-Committee which had been formed on 11th March, 1994 when the time to make the award has already expired. In the circumstances, the application was made for regularisation of the said Committee which was constituted after the time to make the award expired. In the said application the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. also prayed for leave to proceed with the arbitration so that the newly constituted Arbitration Sub-Committee would commence hearing on the dispute as the said Committee could only be constituted on 11th March, 1994 when the time had already expired and further prayed for proceeding with the Arbitration in the meantime so that the Arbitration Sub-Committee which was constituted after the expiry of the period could proceed with the hearing of the dispute. 9. Section 28 of the Arbitration Act merely provides that an application could be made for extension of time but this application is more than that. Therefore, it cannot be said that this application is not• maintainable merely because the application has not been made under s. 28. It cannot be said that extension cannot be granted and that no order can be passed. In fact, it has been held in several decisions that the Court can suo moto grant extension of time. 10. In the case of Amar Nath vs. Uggar Sen and others reported in AIR 1949 All 399 an application was made under s. 5 of the Arbitration Act to revoke an arbitration agreement on the ground that there had been unreasonable delay in making the award. The •Court found that the arbitrators are not responsible for the delay and that the proceedings were over except for filing of the award. The Court further rejected the application and extended the time for making the award. An application challenging the validity of the award, was made subsequently wherein it was held that s. 28 gave unrestricted powers to Court to enlarge the time for making the award irrespective of the fact where the time for making the award expired or not and whether the award had been made or not, provided it thinks fit. An application challenging the validity of the award, was made subsequently wherein it was held that s. 28 gave unrestricted powers to Court to enlarge the time for making the award irrespective of the fact where the time for making the award expired or not and whether the award had been made or not, provided it thinks fit. Therefore the Court had power to enlarge the time and, in the circumstances of the case, it exercised its discretion properly. 11. In the case of Narsing Das Hiralal Ltd. & another vs. Bisandayal Satyanarain Firm reported in AIR 1954 Ori 29 , the Trial Court found that delay in making the award was due to the conduct of the defendant after the award was filed not objecting to its validity on the ground of its having been made beyond time: The Trial Court extended the time for making the award. It was held that the Court exercised its discretion properly in extending the time and that the defendant had waived its objection by its conduct. 12. In the case of State of West Bengal vs. Sree Sree Ma Engineering and another reported in AIR 1987 SC 2229 the Supreme Court set aside an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court setting aside the award passed by the arbitrator on the ground that the arbitrator did not sign the award. 13. Two points were raised in the aforesaid matter, firstly, the award was beyond time and secondly the Id. Advocate had not signed the award. The Division Bench found that as there was an extension of time in making the award and the award having been filed within the time, there was no merit in the first point. The Division Bench, however, was unable to accept unsigned award being made rule of the Court. The Supreme Court held and observed as follows as appears from paragraph 4 and 5 of the said judgment : 4. "It is true that an unsigned award cannot be made the rule of the Court. But it is only a formal defect. It appears that the awards was handed over to the parties and a letter was sent to the parties concerned and award bore no signature of the arbitrator. The parties had acted upon the award. "It is true that an unsigned award cannot be made the rule of the Court. But it is only a formal defect. It appears that the awards was handed over to the parties and a letter was sent to the parties concerned and award bore no signature of the arbitrator. The parties had acted upon the award. It is true that under the law the mandatory rule is that the award should be signed by the arbitrator. But law must subserve justice and endeavour to serve the purpose of law. The Court can in such circumstances extend time for making the award and direct curing of the formal defect in the award. So much time and effort should not be allowed to go waste. 5. In the situation of this nature the proper order in the interest of justice would be to remit the award under s. 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for enabling the arbitrator named therein for signing the award and for that purpose it is necessary under s. 28 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 the Court has the power to extend the time to the arbitrator for making the award final. We did so. We extend the time by four months from today and direct the award be remitted to the arbitrator for signature". 14. It therefore appears that in the interest of justice, the Court has ample power and in fact the Court can suo moto grant extension of time. Since the facts already noted have been brought to the notice of Court which in my view, justifies extension of time, there is no impediment, in my view, under s. 28 to grant such extension. 15. In the instant case detailed particulars relating to the reason for delay in the formation of Arbitration Sub-Committee and also for passing the award have been furnished by Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. which is set out hereinafter. 16. It appears that on or about 20th April, 1993 the Securities and Exchange Board of India directed the various stock exchange to amend the rules or articles of association in respect of various matters including those relating to the constitution of the governing body of the Stock Exchanges. 16. It appears that on or about 20th April, 1993 the Securities and Exchange Board of India directed the various stock exchange to amend the rules or articles of association in respect of various matters including those relating to the constitution of the governing body of the Stock Exchanges. The Securities and Exchange Board of India directed that the rules or articles of association, as the case may be, should provide for nomination of not more than 40% of the members of the exchange on the arbitration, disciplinary and default committees and the balance 60% should be nominated on the said committee from persons other than members of the Stock Exchange with prior approval of the Board. A copy of the letter dated 20th April, 1993 along with the order under s. 8 of the Stock Exchange Regulation Act has been annexed and marked with the letter 'B'. 17. Thereafter, on or about 12th October, 1993 at the 70th Annual General Meeting of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. a special resolution was approved by the members of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. unanimously subject to approval of the Central Government and the Securities and Exchange Board of India for amending certain articles of association of Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. It was decided that Clause 5 of the existing Article 101 should be substituted to read as follows: "Each Sub-Committee should provide for nomination of 40% of elected members of the committee under Clause (a) of article 81 or number as close to the aforesaid percentage as circumstances admit and the balance should be from members of the public as approved by the Securities and Exchange Board of India." A copy of the extracts of the minutes of the 70th Annual General Meeting of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. held on 12th October, 1993 is annexed and marked with the letter 'C'. 18. The aforesaid amendment to the existing Article 101 of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. was done in terms of the letter dated 20th April, 1993 issued by the Securities and Exchange Board of India mentioned hereinabove. . 19. The aforesaid amendment to Article 101 of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. was approved by the Central Government and the Securities and Exchange Board of India. . 19. The aforesaid amendment to Article 101 of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. was approved by the Central Government and the Securities and Exchange Board of India. Thereafter, another meeting of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. was held on 11th March 1994 when the arbitration Sub-Committee, for adjudicating the disputes between the members and non-members was formed. 20. Since some of the members of the Arbitration Sub-Committee were not available due to the reasons beyond the control, it was not possible for the petitioner to give any notice of hearing for adjudicating the disputes prior to 11th April, 1994. On the 11th April, 1994 the notice fixing hearing of the arbitration on 21st April, 1994 at 3.15 p.m. was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due. 21. On April 23, 1994 the notice was duly served on both Uma Shankar Goenka and R. Saraogi and Company. However, representative of Uma Shankar Goenka appeared under protest and submitted a letter dated 28th April, 1994 requesting the petitioner not to proceed with the matter and it was further made clear that since Arbitration Sub-Committee has not been constituted by 15th January, 1994 and since the hearing of the disputes by the Arbitration Sub-Committee did not commence on and from 7th February, 1994 in terms of the order dated 22nd December, 1993 passed by me, necessary variation and/or modification of the said order dated 22th December, 1993 should have been obtained before further proceedings in the matter. But on 21st April, 1994 Uma Shankar Goenka did not appear and thereafter the petitioner through their lawyers Messrs. Khaitan and Company sent a notice intimating the date fixed for hearing on 28th April, 1994. 22. It appears that on or about 29th April, 1994 the petitioner mentioned the matter before me and prayed for extending the time to constitute the Sub-Committee till 11th March, 1994 and for filing of documents till 15th June, 1994. A prayer was also made for extending the date of commencement of hearing from 7th February, 1994 to 30th June, 1994. Necessary extension was also prayed for extending the time to complete the proceeding by 31 st July, 1994. 23. Upon such mentioning I directed the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. to make a formal application praying for such extension of time, which has been accordingly made. 24. Necessary extension was also prayed for extending the time to complete the proceeding by 31 st July, 1994. 23. Upon such mentioning I directed the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. to make a formal application praying for such extension of time, which has been accordingly made. 24. Considering the aforesaid circumstances it appears to me that there are valid and cogent ground which prevented Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. to form Arbitration Sub-Committee in terms of my order in time. Accordingly in my view, there is no reason for not extending the time as prayed for. 25. It has been submitted on behalf of Uma Shankar Goenka that it used to purchase shares of different companies from the respondent No.1 for its own business but not for share brokerage. 26. After sometime, the performance of the respondent No.1 became unsatisfactory and huge loss was caused to Uma Shankar Goenka in respect of shares of different companies and in fact the instructions given by Uma Shankar Goenka in wr1ting were not carried out. Due to such loss Uma Shankar Goenka decided not to purchase shares through the respondent No.1 and as well as to close the business of such purchase of shares through the respondent No.1. Finally on 17.9.86, the said transaction between Uma Shankar Goenka and the respondent No.1 were finalised and closed and accord and satisfaction was arrived at between the parties, and Uma Shankar Goenka paid moneys in respect of some shares and it also received moneys in respect of some shares from the respondent. Thus there was a full accord and satisfaction and finality of the contract and/or transaction between the parties. Thereafter there was no transaction and/or purchase of shares by Uma Shankar Goenka through the respondent No.1. 27. Since such accord and satisfaction was arrived at there exists no dispute between the parties and as such there can be no reference at all to arbitration since the disputes have been finally settled and accord and satisfaction recorded. 28. The learned Advocate in this connection has referred to the Judgment and decision in the case of P.K.Ramaiya vs. N. T.P.C. reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 126 where the Supreme Court held that once full and final settlement is arrived at and there is accord and satisfaction, there can be no reference to arbitration at all. 29. 28. The learned Advocate in this connection has referred to the Judgment and decision in the case of P.K.Ramaiya vs. N. T.P.C. reported in 1994 Supp (3) SCC 126 where the Supreme Court held that once full and final settlement is arrived at and there is accord and satisfaction, there can be no reference to arbitration at all. 29. In the instant case there was no accord and satisfaction and the matter was in fact referred to arbitration of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. and an award was also made which was challenged and an application for setting aside was made whereupon the said award was set aside with the direction made by me in my order dated 22nd December, 1993. Accordingly, the decision in the case of P.K. Ramaiya vs. N. T.P.C. reported in 1992 Supp (3) SCC 126 relied upon by the learned Advocate for Uma Shankar Goenka has really no application to the facts of the instant case. 30. It has also been urged that the respondent No.1 is a member of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Ltd., whereas Uma Shankar Goenka is not a member of the said association. It has also been contended that as per clause 253 and 254 of the bye-laws of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. a reference in case of a dispute can only be made provided a member shares brokerage with a non-member and otherwise not. Uma Shankar Goenka H.U.F. has already affirmed and filed a supplementary affidavit stating that it does not share any brokerage with anyone and as such it does not come within the purview of the said Clause 253 or Clause 254 and as such there is no arbitration agreement subsisting between the parties. It has been submitted that as per s. 2(a) an arbitration agreement means a written agreement to submit present or future differences to arbitration. Therefore, there must be a written agreement to submit and such agreement must have been signed by both the parties. Since there is no such executed written agreement between the parties there can be no reference to arbitration at all as there is no arbitration agreement. 31. It has also been urged that there is no scope for arbitration by the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. under Chapter XVI of the bye-laws and regulation to the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association lid. 31. It has also been urged that there is no scope for arbitration by the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. under Chapter XVI of the bye-laws and regulation to the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association lid. only a claim between a member and a non-member can be referred to the arbitration of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. 32. It has also been submitted that since there, was no arbitration agreement subsisting between the parties in as much as there is no agreement signed by the parties to refer any dispute to arbitration, there is no scope for proceeding in arbitration in the matter. 33. The aforesaid contention, in my view, cannot be accepted. It may be noted that by my order dated 22nd December, 1993, the award made by the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. was set aside with a direction that the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association lid. would reconstitute the arbitration Sub-Committee who will consider the matter afresh and after hearing the parties will pass an award. 34. The validity of the arbitration agreement was not denied or disputed at the material time; although the learned Advocate was heard in details. In the circumstances in my view, it is not open for Uma Shankar Goenka H.U.F. to challenge the said agreement at this stage, since no appeal was preferred against my order nor any application or review or modification was made. 35. It may also be noted that the contention that there is no dispute and there is no arbitration agreement or that the arbitration agreement should be superseded is misconceived and barred by the principles of res judicata constructive res judicata. Under s. 33 of the Arbitration Act, it is open to a person to challenge the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or an award or to have the effect of either determined. In the earlier application under s. 30/33 of the Arbitration Act, no such point or objection regarding the validity of the arbitration agreement was raised. On the contrary, Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. agreed to submit to a fresh hearing by the Arbitration Sub-Committee. The only ground on which the earlier award passed by the Arbitration Sub-Committee of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. was challenged in the former application, was that it was an ex parte award. On the contrary, Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. agreed to submit to a fresh hearing by the Arbitration Sub-Committee. The only ground on which the earlier award passed by the Arbitration Sub-Committee of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. was challenged in the former application, was that it was an ex parte award. Thus, having agreed to submit to a fresh hearing by the Arbitration Sub-Committee and having agreed to have the dispute resolved by the Arbitration Sub-Committee of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd., Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. now cannot contend that there is no arbitration agreement at all between itself and R.Saraogi & Company or that the Arbitration Sub-Committee of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the disputes alleged to have arisen between itself and R. Saraogi & Company. The contention that there is no dispute and the matter has been settled between itself and R. Saraogi & Company is a matter which have to be adjudicated by the Arbitration Sub-Committee of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. in terms of the order dated 22nd December, 1993 which was passed at the instance of Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. 36. The contention of Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. is hit by the principles of res judicata/constructive res judiacata which applies to arbitration proceedings. In the case of K. V.George vs. The Secretary to Government Water and Power Department Trivandrum & Another reported in AIR 1990 SC 53 and in the case of P.K. Vijayan vs. Kamalakshi Amma and others, reported in 1994 (4) SCC 53 it was held that matter which might or ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in a forma proceeding (but which was not done) cannot be allowed to be taken in another subsequent proceeding. If the contention of Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F., that there is no arbitration agreement is correct, then the said point should have been taken at the first instance in the former application by Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. and should have asked for setting aside the award in the former application under s. 30/33 not- only on the ground that it was an ex parte award but also on the ground that there is no arbitration agreement at all. Having not done so and on the contrary having agreed to refer the dispute to the Arbitration Sub-Committee, the contention of Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. that there is no arbitration agreement and the reference should be superseded, is misconceived. 37. In the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax A.P. vs. His. Taj Mahal Hotel reported in AI R 1972 SC 168 it was held by the Supreme Court that the word "includes" is often used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute. When it is so used, there words and phrases must be construed as comprehending not only such things as they signify according to their nature and import but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. 38. The same view has been taken by the Supreme Court in the other decision relied upon by learned Advocate on behalf of the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. in the case of Regional Director ESI Corpn. vs. High Coffee Works reported in 1991 (3) SCC 617 . 39. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to accept the contention of Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. that it being a non-member does not come within the purview of rules of arbitration of Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. There will be an order granting leave to proceed with the arbitration of the Arbitration Sub-Committee constituted by the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. with regard to the pending arbitration of the petitioner. 40. The said arbitration Sub-Committee is directed to submit its award within four months from date. Both the applications are accordingly disposed of with the direction as above. 41. There will be no order as to costs. 42. In view of the judgement and order in Award Case No. 614 of 1992 (Uma Shankar Goenka, H.U.F. vs. R. Saraogi and Company and another) no further order is required to be passed in Award Case No. 615 of 1992 (Piyush Limited vs. R. Saraogi and Company and another) since the same order will govern this matter and accordingly the applications of Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Ltd. and that of Piyush Limited are disposed of with the same direction. 43. There will be no order as to costs. Application disposed of with direction.