JUDGMENT - F.I. REBELLO, J.:--- The petitioner by this petition has prayed that the Award dated 3rd April, 1998 passed by the Governing Body of the Bombay Stock Exchange referring the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent to member/member arbitration be quashed and set aside. 2.The petitioner in support of her contention has raised various grounds which are enumerated as under:- (1) That the dispute is between member and non-member and not between member and member. (2) The claim is barred by limitation being contrary to the provisions of Bye-law No. 307. (3) There is no contract note providing for arbitration and as such the award is without jurisdiction. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the challenge to the award is under section 33 read with section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. It is further contended that even though the prayer in the petition is challenge to the award dated 3rd April, 1998 yet the petitioner can under section 33 raise other points involved and which have been argued. I do not propose to deal with contentions 2 3 as the said contentions were not in issue before the Arbitrator nor decided. The only point in issue before the Arbitrator was whether the dispute was a dispute between a member and non-member. The Arbitrator held that this was a dispute between a member and non-member. The respondent herein preferred an appeal before the Full Bench of the Bombay Stock Exchange. The finding of the Arbitrator was reversed and it was held to be a dispute between member and member. The matter was taken up to the Governing Body which held that the dispute to be between member and member. Hence, the present petition. 3.The point, therefore, that has to be decided is whether the findings given by the Appellate Authorities under the Bye-laws framed by the Bombay Stock Exchange can be sustained in law. In the first instance this is a conclusion of law arrived at and as such this Court ordinarily would not interfere with the said conclusion unless the authorities had proceeded on wrong proposition of law. At any rate considering the point involved I puropose to consider the said issue. Bye-law 3 is the Bye-law setting out as to who can be a member. At any rate considering the point involved I puropose to consider the said issue. Bye-law 3 is the Bye-law setting out as to who can be a member. Bye-law 5 sets out that the membership is personal permission from the Stock Exchange to exercise the rights and privileges attached thereto subject to the Rules, bye-laws of the Exchange. Bye-law 6 sets out that the member shall not assign, mortgage, etc., his membership or any interest in the membership. Bye-law No. 248 pertains to disputes between members and non-members Bye-law No. 282 is the Bye-law pretaining to dispute between member and member. The said Bye-law reads as under:- "282. All claims complaints, differences and disputes between members arising out of or in relation to any bargains, dealings, transactions or contracts made subject to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange or with reference to anything incidental thereto or anything to be done in pursuance thereof and any question or dispute whether such bargains, dealings, transactions or contracts have been entered into or not shall be subject to arbitration and referred to the Arbitration Committee as provided in these Bye-laws and Regulations." A bare reading of Bye-law 282 of will show that all claims, complaints, differences and disputes between members in relation to any bargains, dealings, transactions or contracts made will be subject to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange or with reference to anything incidental thereto or anything to be done in pursuance thereof and any question or dispute whether such bargains, dealings, transactions or contracts have been entered into or not shall be subject to arbitration and referred to the Arbitration Committee as provided in these Bye-laws and Regulations. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, is that these are not transactions made subject to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Stock Exchange. In other words if the argument of the learned Counsel is to be accepted that these are not transactions done through the mechanism of the Stock Exchange then the question will arise whether the provisions of the Bye-laws will at all be attracted to convert a dispute between a member and member into a dispute between a member and non-member. In other words if the argument of the learned Counsel is to be accepted that these are not transactions done through the mechanism of the Stock Exchange then the question will arise whether the provisions of the Bye-laws will at all be attracted to convert a dispute between a member and member into a dispute between a member and non-member. If the transaction between members are transactions not covered by the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations then such transaction, prima facie, will not be covered by the Bye-laws at all and will fall outside the provisions of the said Bye-laws. Learned Counsel places reliance on a judgment of a Single Judge of this Court in the case of (Messrs Harkisondas Lukhmidas another v. Messrs Ramniklal Mohanlal)1, in Arbitration Petition No. 89 of 1984 in Award No. 542 of 1984 dated 4th October, 1986 to contend that this Court has taken a view that such transactions are outside the mechanism of the Bye-laws framed by the Stock Exchange and will be deemed to be a dispute between a member and non-member. No such proposition can be carved out from the said judgment. A perusal of the said judgment would indicate that the contention was taken that the transactions were transactions prohibited by law. It is in that context that the learned Single Judge of this Court came to the conclusion that the transactions were not between a member and member. The said judgment would, therefore, not apply at all to the facts of the present case. It is not the contention of any of the parties that the transactions are prohibited by law. Even otherwise if the transactions are prohibited the question of Bye-laws being attracted itself is questionable. However, I do not propose to decide that point in the present petition as it is not required to be gone into for deciding the present issue in controversy between the parties. Merely because two members decided not to abide by the Bye-laws of the Stock Exchange would not convert the transaction into a transaction between member and non-member. At the highest this may tantamount to such members acting contrary to the provisions of the Bye-laws for which action in law can be taken against them. Merely because two members decided not to abide by the Bye-laws of the Stock Exchange would not convert the transaction into a transaction between member and non-member. At the highest this may tantamount to such members acting contrary to the provisions of the Bye-laws for which action in law can be taken against them. It does not cease to be a transaction between a member and member as long as they are transactions which could have been dealt with by the members on the Stock Exchange. Whilst so holding I have noted the language of the Bye-law while referring to transaction between member and member made subject to the Rules, Bye-laws, Regulations of the Stock Exchange. Taking any other view would tantamount to mean that though they are members doing transactions on the Stock Exchange as those transactions are not covered by the Rules, etc., they will not attract the provisions pertaining to member-member dispute. This will result in enabling members who are bound by the Stock Exchange Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations to flout them and still continue to be members. This would defeat the very provisions of the Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956. In such an event the other view will be that they will cease to be a dispute under the provisions of the Bye-laws, Rules and Regulations. The question therefore of applying the provisions of Arbitration Act will not arise. This view must be rejected in favour of the view that when member and member deals with transactions which are covered by the transactions of the Stock Exchange they will be transactions between member and member though in breach of the provisions. The only possible exception would be in the event the transactions are not transactions covered by Securities Contract (Regulation) Act, 1956. It will then be for the Arbitrator to decide the relief to be granted in such case. In the light of that I see no reason to accept the contention that transaction between member and a member in contravention of the Bye-laws, ceases to be a transaction between a member and member. Bye-law 282 would squarely cover such transactions as transactions between member and member. 4.As pointed out earlier no other contention was answered even if raised as contended by the petitioner. Bye-law 282 would squarely cover such transactions as transactions between member and member. 4.As pointed out earlier no other contention was answered even if raised as contended by the petitioner. As the said contentions were not decided by the Arbitrator I do not propose to enter into or decide the same at this stage. Having said so all other issues including points raised and not answered can be raised before the Arbitrator. 5.In the light of that, I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly rejected. In the circumstances of the case no order as to costs. Petition rejected. *****