JUDGMENT D.K. Deshmukh, J. - The names of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are permitted to be deleted. Rule, returnable forthwith, Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. All these four petitions are filed by members of the same family. The awards have also been made by the same Arbitrators. The questions that arise for determination are also almost identical. Therefore, all these four petitions can be conveniently disposed of by a common order. 3. It appears that the claim was referred to the Arbitrators under the bye-laws of the Bombay Stock Exchange by the respondent No.1 for recovery of some amounts from the petitioners. It transpires that the proceedings started in the year 1987. At that time, the petitioners sought inspection of the documents relied on by the respondent No.1 in its statement of claim. The inspection of the documents was taken. Thereafter, a request was made for supply of zerox copies of the documents. However, the zerox copies were not supplied. Therefore, a request was made to the Arbitrators for a direction to the respondent No.1 to supply the zerox copies of the documents. However, the Arbitrators declined to issue any such direction. The matters though initiated in the year 1987, dragged on because of the change of Arbitrators from time to time. It transpires that in Arbitration Petition No.262 of 1999, the petitioner therein had made a positive commitment before the Arbitrators that written statement would be filed, however, still no written statement was filed. Thereafter, witness for the respondent No.1 was examined and it is only thereafter that the written statements and counter claims were filed by the petitioners. According to the averments in the petition, these written statements and counter claims were rejected by the Arbitrators and the awards were made directing the petitioners to pay the amounts mentioned in the awards. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these petitions submitted that it was not possible for the petitioners to submit their written statements without getting zerox copies of the documents on which the respondent No.1 was relying in support of its claim. According to the learned counsel, those copies were made available to the petitioners only when the witness for respondent No.1 was examined and thereafter, immediately they filed their written statements and counter claims. According to the learned counsel, those copies were made available to the petitioners only when the witness for respondent No.1 was examined and thereafter, immediately they filed their written statements and counter claims. According to the learned counsel, as at any rate the written statements were produced on record before the references were finally decided by the Arbitrators. The Arbitrators ought to have taken into consideration the written statements and the counter claims filed by the petitioners while making the awards. According to the learned counsel, the awards therefore suffer from breach of the principles of natural justice. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, on the other hands, points out that it was repeatedly pointed out by the respondent No.1 as also the Arbitrators to the petitioners that once inspection has been given and that the petitioners would not be supplied zerox copies of the documents. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, it was therefore for the petitioners to file written statements within time. The learned counsel submits that in all the case, the written statements and the counter claims were filed after the respondent No.1 closed its evidence and in one case, after the petitioners examined one of their witnesses. In the submission of the learned counsel, in no case, the petitioners could have filed their written statement without submitting a written application to the Arbitrators stating the circumstances due to which the written statements could not be filed previously and seeking leave of the Arbitrators to place written statement on record. In the submission of the learned counsel, making of such an application was necessary to comply with the principles of natural justice so that the respondent No.1 gets an opportunity to submit their say on that application. The learned counsel further submits that in view of the provisions of Bye-laws No.271 of the Bye-laws of Stock Exchange, Bombay, a counter claim can be filed only at or before the first date of hearing and it can be filed afterwards only if so permitted by the Arbitrators. In the submission of the learned counsel therefore, the counter claims filed by the petitioners could not have been considered by the Arbitrators in the absence of the petitioners making an application in writing to the Arbitrators seeking permission to file their counter claims on record after the first date of hearing. 6. In the submission of the learned counsel therefore, the counter claims filed by the petitioners could not have been considered by the Arbitrators in the absence of the petitioners making an application in writing to the Arbitrators seeking permission to file their counter claims on record after the first date of hearing. 6. Now, if in the light of the rival submissions the record of the case is perused, it become clear that so far as the counter claims filed by the petitioners are concerned, in the absence of written application being made by the petitioners disclosing sufficient cause for not filing their counter claims earlier and seeking permission of the Arbitrators to file the counter claims in view of provisions of Bye-laws No.271, the Arbitrators were perfectly justified in not considering the counter claims. It is obvious that the Arbitrator can permit a counter claim to be filed at a later date for goods reasons. Making of a written application is necessary so that the other side gets an opportunity to submit its points of view. The power of the Arbitrator under Bye-law No.271 cannot be exercised in breach of the principles of nature justice. Therefore, I find no fault with the order of the Arbitrators in declining to consider the counter claims. 7. So far as the question of non-consideration of written statement is concerned, it is clear that the petitioners were claiming zerox copies of the documents. It is also true that the respondent No.1 was consistently declining to give them copies as the record had been inspected by the petitioners and that the Arbitrators had also from time to time pointed out that the zerox copies cannot be supplied. It is also true that even if the petitioners were not in a position to submit their comprehensive written statement in the absence of the zerox copies, they could have submitted their written statement reserving liberty therein to the petitioners to file further written statement or amend their written statement after getting copies of the documents. There is no explanation for not following this course of action by the petitioners. It is also a fact that the petitioners did not file written statement at the first date of hearing, they were filing the written statement after the respondent No.1 had examined his witness. There is no explanation for not following this course of action by the petitioners. It is also a fact that the petitioners did not file written statement at the first date of hearing, they were filing the written statement after the respondent No.1 had examined his witness. In my opinion, therefore, there is considerable substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 that along with their written statement, the petitioner were obliged to make an application seeking leave of the Arbitrators to submit their written statement and having reasons therein on the basis of which they are entitled to such a leave. Making of such an application would be necessary to comply with the principles of natural justice. However, perusal of the record shows that except in one case, in other three matters, there is no commitment on behalf of the petitioners to file written statements and they were all along insisting on zerox copies of the documents. They have also actually filed their written statement on record. Therefore, though it cannot be said that the Arbitrators were at all not justified in rejecting the written statements filed by the petitioners, in my opinion, in the interest of justice, as the written statements were already on record, the Arbitrators could have taken them into consideration subject to certain conditions. In my opinion, therefore, the following order would meet the ends of justice. 8. The awards made by the Arbitrators are set aside subject to the condition that within eight weeks from today, the petitioners deposit in this Court the amounts (excluding future interest) awarded by the Arbitrators in each case, viz., Rs. 6,42,396/- in Arbitration Petition No.260 of 1999, Rs. 4,58,569/- in Arbitration Petition 261 of 1999, Rs. 11,02,250/- in Arbitration Petition No.262 of 1999, Rs. 8,72,261/- in Arbitration Petition No.263 of 1999. On such deposit being made, the respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to withdraw the amounts after furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court and submit an undertaking to re-deposit the amount if so directed by the Arbitrators. The deposit and it withdrawal shall be subject to the directions that may be issued by the Arbitrators in their fresh awards. The deposit and it withdrawal shall be subject to the directions that may be issued by the Arbitrators in their fresh awards. In case there is a failure on the part of the petitioners to make the deposit within the time as directed above, the awards shall be treated as confirmed and these petitions stand dismissed and decree in terms of the award shall be treated as passed. It is directed that the petitioners shall make the deposit with due notice to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 shall withdraw the amount within eight weeks from the date of deposit as directed above. In case the respondent No.1 fails to withdraw the sum within the aforesaid period, the amount be invested in a Nationalised Bank in fixed deposit initially for a period of one year. Petitions are disposed of accordingly, Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Associate as true copy. Certified copy expedited. Order accordingly.