JUDGMENT 1. IN this writ application the main grievance of the petitioner is against the respondent no. 1, the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, alleging that the said company acted in an arbitrary manner by not refunding the entire security deposit as deposited as a condition of membership, when the petitioner wanted to resign from the membership by transferring his share in favour of his daughter who applied for mutation of her name as member of the said company. 2. TO satisfy the issue that the writ is maintainable before the High Court at Calcutta against the said company irrespective of fact of its nomenclature as a company incorporated under the Companies Act, by filing a supplementary affidavit it is contended, inter alia, that under the Securities and Exchange Board of India, in short hereinafter referred to as SEBI, the respondent no. 2 herein, Calcutta Stock Exchange, for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "said Company", is controlled by respondent no. 2, constituted under Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956, hereinafter for brevity referred to as SCRA. Different sections of the SCRA has been referred to, to contend that the business of the said Company is controlled by the SEBI created under the said Act including its registration, membership and all other matters including the provision for appointment of Administrator by superseding the Board of Directors in the event of any proved fact of mismanagement. All this has been urged for the satisfaction of this Court that the said Company is an authority under Article 12 of the constitution of India and as such, writ application is maintainable. It has been further submitted that said Company is discharging a public function. This writ application has been opposed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 both by filing their respective affidavit-in-opposition including affidavit-in opposition of supplementary affidavit as filed by the petitioner by contending, inter alia, that the Calcutta Stock Exchange is not an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India as because the financial, managerial and other administrative function of the said Stock Exchange is not controlled by the central Government even on application of the said Act of 1956, which has been referred to as SCRA. It has been contended that there are so many regulation/statute whereby Central Government through any Act has been empowered to appoint any administrator in the event of complaint of any mismanagement of the Board and/or sometimes it requires consent/approval under any statute for admission of any member but that does not mean that the organization is absolutely under the control of the government and more particularly with reference to its dealing with a member who intended to resign and thereby his claim of refund of security deposit. It has been further contended that when a member intends to resign from the membership of Calcutta Stock exchange, refund of its security deposit is subject to deductions as made in the bye-laws and the regulation and furthermore, if anybody is aggrieved by such decision about refund of security money or any other transaction, the member is at liberty to initiate an arbitration proceeding under the Arbitration Clause in terms of the bye-laws of the said Company. With this contention it has been urged that there is an alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy by arbitration following the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, as such, writ is not maintainable on that ground also. 3. THE action of the Calcutta Stock Exchange deducting certain portion of the money from security deposit on the ground as mentioned, is a justified ground in terms of the bye-laws and the regulation, is also the submission of respondent no. 1, on merit. 4. THE fact leading to the writ application is very short. It is the case of the writ petitioner as contended in the writ application and the supplementary affidavit that the writ petitioner was admitted as a member of Calcutta Stock exchange by depositing various sums as mentioned in the paragraph 11 of the writ application including the security deposit. Subsequently, the writ petitioner decided not to continue as a Stock Broker and requested to refund the security deposit of Rs. 12.50 lakhs. The Stock Exchange agreed to refund out of deposit as made on deducting certain portion of the money, namely, Rs. 3.00 lakhs. The writ petitioner was admitted as member of Company to run his business as Stock broker by depositing the following amounts as stated in paragraph 11 of the writ application: (i) Sum of Rs. 2,50,000/0 by Cheque interest free for Settlement guarantee Fund (SGF). (ii) Sum of Rs. 3.00 lakhs. The writ petitioner was admitted as member of Company to run his business as Stock broker by depositing the following amounts as stated in paragraph 11 of the writ application: (i) Sum of Rs. 2,50,000/0 by Cheque interest free for Settlement guarantee Fund (SGF). (ii) Sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards payment of interest free deposit for 5 years on account of SGF. (iii) Rs. 10,000/- towards SGF contribution (Non-refundable). (iv) Rs. 3,00,000/- by cheque for SGF account. (v) Rs. 2,00,000/- by cheque towards payment of C. Star Project." It is the case of the writ petitioner that as he has not participated in trading and settlement related activities of Stock Exchange, the writ petitioner is entitled to have the refund of full amount of the security deposit, which has been denied by the Calcutta Stock Exchange on the alleged ground that out of refundable security deposit being Rs. 10. 5 lakhs, Rs. 7.5 lakhs was adjusted as per relevant provisions of the by-laws and regulation of the Stock Exchange towards meeting the liabilities arising out of Settlement Guarantee Fund, which hereinafter in short referred to as SGF. It is the contention in the writ application further that the Stock Exchange cannot deduct Rs. 7.5 lakhs as the writ petitioner never participated in trading and settlement related activities in any manner. 5. IN the affidavit-in-opposition it has been contended categorically that dispute as raised in the writ application is nothing but a money claim, which should not be entertained by the writ court in view of Clause XXXI of the settlement Guarantee Fund, bye-laws and regulation of the said Company. It has been further contended that there is an arbitration clause in terms of its bye-law, which provide a mechanism of resolving the dispute on merit and further it has been contended that deduction of Rs. 7.5 lakhs was justified under the regulation as referred to for maintaining SGF fund irrespective of the fact that the writ petitioner did not participate in any business transaction. 6. LEARNED Advocates of both the parties have relied upon the several judgments on issue of Article 12 of the Constitution of India to submit their respective claim and counterclaim about maintainability of the writ application. In support of contention that there is alternative remedy, different judgments have been referred to submit that due to arbitration clause under the bye-laws, writ is not maintainable. In support of contention that there is alternative remedy, different judgments have been referred to submit that due to arbitration clause under the bye-laws, writ is not maintainable. 7. HAVING regard to the rival contention of the parties, this Court is of the view that there is no need of entering into arena of dispute as raised about maintainability of the writ application on the premises as to whether the Stock exchange is an authority under Article 12 of the Constitution of India or not. That question is left open for decision for an appropriate case. 8. IT appears that the writ petitioner's main claim is a money claim seeking refund of the security deposit, whereas, it has been opposed by the said company, Calcutta Stock Exchange, respondent no. 1, by contending that under regulation XXXI, Stock Exchange is legally entitled to deduct Rs. 7. 50 lakhs irrespective of the fact that the writ petitioner did not participate in Stock Broker activities. It has been further contended that the Stock Exchange is agreed to refund Rs. 3 lakhs only. It is a settled legal position that when a relief is prayed for to refund any money, which is not a consequential relief by adjudication of main issue, if any, the same cannot be decided in a writ. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case U. P. Pollution Control Board and Ors. Vs. Kanoria Industrial ltd. and Anr., reported in (2001) 2 SCC 549 , Para 12 of this report reads such: "in the para extracted above, in a similar situation as arising in the present cases relating to the very question of refund, while answering the said question affirmatively, this Court pointed out that the courts have made distinction between those cases where a claimant approached a High Court seeking relief of obtaining refund only and those where refund was sought as a consequential relief after striking down of the order of assessment, etc. In these cases also the claims made for refund in the writ petitions were consequent upon declaration of law made by this Court. Hence, the High Court committed no error in entertaining the writ petitions." 9. THE Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. In the memorandum of association under Clause (3), the object of the association has been described in details. Hence, the High Court committed no error in entertaining the writ petitions." 9. THE Calcutta Stock Exchange Association Limited is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. In the memorandum of association under Clause (3), the object of the association has been described in details. The relevant portions of such objects for adjudication of this case being clause (a), (b), (c), (cc) and (p) reads such: "(a) To acquire and take over all or any of the assets and liabilities of the present unincorporated Association known as "the Calcutta Stock Exchange Association" and to conduct the affairs of the stock Exchange founded by that Association and generally to support and protest the character, status and interest of brokers and dealers in stocks and shares on the Stock Exchange at Calcutta and elsewhere. (b) To facilitate the transaction of business on the Stock exchange and to make rules and bye-laws regulating the mode and conditions in and subject to which the business on the Stock Exchange shall be transacted and the conduct of the persons transacting the same and generally for the good order and government of members of the Association. (c) To establish just and equitable principles, to settle points of practice and to decide upon any questions of business usage or courtesy between or among members of the Association. (cc) To decide all questions and disputes affecting the members of the Association in making, settling or closing of bargains and in their conduct to each other or towards third parties, to punish such members as may be found guilty and with a view thereto appoint Arbitration committees or Sub-Committees and to promote rules and bye-laws covering the principles of procedure to be followed by the Arbitration committees and the Sub-committees and the parties to the proceedings before such Committees. (p) To do all such other things as may be conducive to, or incidental to the attainment of the above objects or any of them." 10. (p) To do all such other things as may be conducive to, or incidental to the attainment of the above objects or any of them." 10. THE Settlement Guarantee Fund and the bye-laws and regulations in terms of Chapter 18 of the regulation framed by the Calcutta Stock Exchange limited, which has been approved by the Securities and Exchange Board of India vide letter dated 21st April, 1998 and by the Committee of the Exchange enforced from 4th May, 1998 provides the purpose and effect of the security deposits, its withdrawal, refund as well as subscription to the Settlement Guarantee Fund. The relevant provision of the said bye-laws of Calcutta Stock Exchange reads such: "2. ACTIVE MEMBER/member: "active Member" or "member" means any person admitted as a member in Calcutta Stock exchange in accordance with the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange and acting and transacting in securities through C-STAR. 3. SETTLEMENT GUARANTEE FUND: "settlement Guarantee fund" means the Calcutta Stock Exchange Settlement Guarantee Fund established and maintained in accordance with the provisions of these bye-laws for the purpose of guaranteeing trades and transactions in securities by active member on C-STAR System in Calcutta Stock exchange. It includes the corpus and all other donations, contributions, levies, charges and incomes and properties of SGF to guarantee settlement of deals between the members of the Exchange. Subject to the other provisions of the Rules, Bye-Laws and Regulations of the exchange, the objects of the Fund shall be to guarantee, in accordance with the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange, the settlement of bona fide transactions of members of the Exchange interse which form part of the Exchange's settlement system so as to endeavour to ensure timely completion of settlements on the Exchange and thereby protect the interest of the investors on the Exchange and the members of the Exchange and thereby also inculcate confidence in the minds of investors regarding the expeditious completion of settlement on the Exchange and support the development of the stock market. 11. SECURITY DEPOSIT: "security Deposit" means a sum of rupees ten lacs kept deposited by a member with the Exchange or settlement Guarantee Fund as security as follows: (i) A sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash to be deposited by the active member with the SGF or already lying deposited by such member with the Exchange. 11. SECURITY DEPOSIT: "security Deposit" means a sum of rupees ten lacs kept deposited by a member with the Exchange or settlement Guarantee Fund as security as follows: (i) A sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- in cash to be deposited by the active member with the SGF or already lying deposited by such member with the Exchange. (ii) Balance in securities or cash in lieu thereof as prescribed by the Exchange or the relevant authority to be deposited by the active member with SGF or lying deposited with the Exchange. (a) The above security deposits in cash or securities at present lying with the Exchange shall stand transferred to the SGF by the Exchange and the Stock Exchange may in accordance with the directions of the Defaulters Sub-Committee continue to hold any of the securities in its name as deposit for the SGF. (b) The security deposit in cash or securities shall be ordinarily refundable to the member, who has not defaulted and ceases to be a member in the manner and to the extent prescribed. (c) If a member defaults his security deposit cash or security shall become immediately part of the Fund and be applied accordingly. (d) If a member defaults, security deposit of other members may be utilized to meet the liability of SGF arising from such default as prescribed. (e) Interest if any earned by the SGF on cash deposit of Rs. 2,50,000/- shall be the income of SGF. (f) Any dividend, bonus or other benefit accruing to deposit in securities or in cash in lieu thereof shall be the income of and payable to the member concerned by SGF." The management of the fund and the liability of the members relating to such fund as well as the mechanism of resolving any dispute has been prescribed in details providing an Arbitration Clause under Clause XXXI, which reads such: "xxxi. Arbitration: Any claim, dispute or difference between the Exchange or the Defaulters Sub-Committee and a member or a defaulter in connection with any amount payable or alleged by the exchange or the Defaulters Sub-Committee as being payable by the member or the defaulter to the Exchange, the Defaulters Sub-Committee or the Settlement Guarantee Fund shall be referred to the arbitration of the Executive Director of the Exchange or to the arbitration of such person as the Executive Director may nominate in this behalf. 11. 11. NOTWITHSTANDING anything stated elsewhere in the Rules, Bye laws and Regulations, the Defaulters Sub-Committee shall not be liable to pay any of the following amounts from the Fund: a) any amount payable by the defaulter to the Clearing House on account of costs, charges, expenses, fines or penalties; b) any amount payable by the defaulter to any constituent on any account whatsoever; c) any amount payable by the defaulter in respect of a transaction which is not part of the Exchange'' settlement procedure; d) any amount payable by the defaulter in respect of any transaction which would have been settled otherwise than through the Clearing House (if such default had not occurred); e) any amount payable by the defaulter in respect of any transaction which is not entered into through the exchange's computerised trading system unless such transaction has been reported to the Exchange in the manner stipulated by the Exchange or by the Rules, byelaws and Regulations of the Exchange or both, and at the time of such reporting the member and the defaulter have exercised the option to have the transaction settled through the Clearing House." 12. IT is an admitted position as it appears from the pleading of the writ application, the affidavit-in-opposition and the affidavit-in-reply that issue of deduction of certain amount from Settlement Guarantee Fund is the only issue. In one hand the writ petitioner has claimed that there should not be any deduction of security deposit, which has been deposited. On the other hand it has been argued by the Stock Exchange that as there is an arbitration clause under Clause XXXI as referred to, the issue could be resolved by arbitration and not in the writ application. 13. FROM the writ application it appears that the petitioner has only prayed for release of security deposit. The prayer of the writ application reads such: "a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the respondents to act in accordance with law and to forthwith release the security deposit being the sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- with them, to the petitioner. b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari be issued directing the respondents and their servants and agents to certify and transmit to this Hon'ble Court records. c) Appropriate writ or writs be issued as would afford complete relief to the petitioner. 12,50,000/- with them, to the petitioner. b) A writ of and/or in the nature of Certiorari be issued directing the respondents and their servants and agents to certify and transmit to this Hon'ble Court records. c) Appropriate writ or writs be issued as would afford complete relief to the petitioner. d) Rule NISI in terms of prayers above. e) If no cause or insufficient cause is shown, the Rule be made absolute. f) Order of injunction directing the respondents to release the security Deposit of Rs. 12,50,000/- to the petitioner. g) Ad interim orders in terms of prayer (f) above. h) Cost of this application be paid by the respondents. i) Such further order or orders and/or direction or directions be given as to this Hon'ble Court may seem fit and proper." 14. HENCE, from a bare reading of the prayer of the writ application it appears that petitioner has prayed for refund of money raising a money claim in the writ jurisdiction. It is a settled legal position that money claim cannot be the subject matter of the writ application but only as a consequential relief that order could be passed as already discussed above. Having regard to the factual matrix as urged and having regard to the regulation and rules of the Stock Exchange it appears before this Court that subject matter of this writ application is nothing but a money claim where one party has claimed full refund of security deposit and other has denied, which requires an adjudication on the basis of different factual matrix of SGF terms and conditions framed by the said Company, by resorting to a full-fledged dispute resolving mechanism as has been set up by way of arbitration. Hence, this Court will be slow to entertain this writ application as there is an alternative efficacious and speedy remedy available to the writ petitioner for resolving said dispute. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case State of U. P. and Ors. Vs. Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd., reported in AIR 1996 SC 3515 : (1996) 6 SCC 15. PARA 21 of the said report reads such: "there is yet another substantial reason for not entertaining the writ petition. The contract in question contains a clause providing inter alia for settlement of disputes by reference to arbitration [clause 67 of the Contract]. Bridge and Roof Co. (India) Ltd., reported in AIR 1996 SC 3515 : (1996) 6 SCC 15. PARA 21 of the said report reads such: "there is yet another substantial reason for not entertaining the writ petition. The contract in question contains a clause providing inter alia for settlement of disputes by reference to arbitration [clause 67 of the Contract]. The Arbitrators can decide both questions of fact as well as question of law. When the contract itself provides for a mode of settlement of disputes arising from the contract, there is no reason why the parties should not follow and adopt that remedy and invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The existence of an effective alternative remedy - in this case, provided in the contract itself - is a good ground for the Court to decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. The said Article was not meant to supplant the existing remedies at law but only to supplement them in certain well-recognized situations. As pointed out above, the prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus was wholly misconceived in this case since the respondent was not seeking to enforce any statutory right of theirs nor was it seeking to enforce any statutory obligation cast upon the appellants. Indeed, the very resort to Article 226 - whether for issuance of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction - was misconceived for the reasons mentioned supra." 16. RELIANCE is made to the decision of the Apex Court on the point that when there is an arbitration clause in contractual field, Writ Court will not interfere applying the principle of alternative remedy as passed in the case The empire Jute Company Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2008) 1 ICC (SC) 420, wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 18 held to this effect: "the power of judicial review vested in the superior courts undoubtedly has wide amplitude by the same should not be exercised when there exists an arbitration clause. The Division Bench of the High court took recourse to the arbitration agreement in regard to one part of the dispute but proceeded to determine the other part itself. The Division Bench of the High court took recourse to the arbitration agreement in regard to one part of the dispute but proceeded to determine the other part itself. It could have refused to exercise its jurisdiction leaving the parties to avail their own remedies under the agreement but if it was of the opinion that the dispute between the parties being covered by the arbitration clause should be referred to arbitration, it should not have proceeded to determine a part of the dispute itself." In the said judgment the Apex Court relied upon the earlier views expressed by the Apex Court in the case M/s. Bisra Stone Lime Co. Ltd. etc. vs. Orissa State Electricity Board and Anr., reported in AIR 1976 SC 127 . Para 24 of which reads such: "it is then submitted that this Court should not use its discretion in favour of arbitration in a matter where it is a pure question of law as to the power of the Board to levy a surcharge. This submission would have great force if the sole question involved were the scope and ambit of the power of the Board under Sections 49 and 50 of the Act to levy a surcharge, as it was sought to be initially argued. The question in that event may not have been within the content of clause 23 of the agreement. But all questions of law, one of which may be interpretation of the agreement, need not necessarily be withdrawn from the domestic forum because the court has discretion under Section 34 of the arbitration Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the court is better posted to decide such questions. The arbitration clause 23 is a clause of wide amplitude taking in its sweep even interpretation of the agreement and necessarily, therefore, of clause 13 therein. We are therefore, unable to accede to the submission that we should exercise our discretion to withhold the matter from arbitration and deal with it ourselves." 17. HAVING regard to the aforesaid findings and observation and the law in the field, I am of the view that this writ application is not maintainable applying the doctrine of alternative remedy. 18. We are therefore, unable to accede to the submission that we should exercise our discretion to withhold the matter from arbitration and deal with it ourselves." 17. HAVING regard to the aforesaid findings and observation and the law in the field, I am of the view that this writ application is not maintainable applying the doctrine of alternative remedy. 18. BEFORE parting with the matter, I have to deal with another question, which has been raised by the writ petitioner by contending that in an identical matter relating to Magma Securities Limited, the writ application being no. W. P. 1921 of 2004 was allowed directing refund of security money in accordance with law, which has been confirmed by the Division Bench, so the petitioner is entitled for identical order. The orders as referred to read such: "single BENCH ORDER: w. P. NO. 1921 OF 2004 having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I dispose of this petition by directing the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to refund the security deposit of the petitioners after deducting the SEBI turnover fees and any other dues therefrom without any further delay, but positively within a period 3 weeks from the date of communication of this order. The petitioners herein are also directed to submit the Auditor's certificate afresh in relation to the turnover details. There will, however, be no order as to costs. All parties concerned are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this Dictated Order on the usual undertaking. DIVISION BENCH ORDER: G. A. 1134 of 2005 apo/t No. 217 of 2005 w. P. No. 1921 OF 2004. Learned single Judge of this Court has directed respondents nos. 2 to 4 to refund the security deposit of the petitioner after deducting the SEBI turn-over fees and any other dues therefrom without any further delay. Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 have come up before us in an appeal. There would be no point in going into the details of the transactions since SEBI before us agrees to inform the dues about the original petitioner. The same dues would be informed to the respondent nos. 2 to 4. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 would despatch that much of amount to SEBI. For this the original petitioner will authorize the respondents Nos. The same dues would be informed to the respondent nos. 2 to 4. Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 would despatch that much of amount to SEBI. For this the original petitioner will authorize the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 to send that amount and on that SEBI shall give its no objection certificate, once the SEBI is satisfied about the return of the amount. On that basis, the amount of securities lying with respondents Nos. 2 to 4 would be returned by them to the original writ petitioner. The authorization will be done within a period of seven days from today. SEBI shall inform about the dues within seven days thereafter. The whole transaction shall be completed within 21 days from today. Needless to mention that the appellant herein would be entitled to deduct any other amount which are due to it otherwise. With these observations we dispose of both the appeal and the application. Parties are to act on a xerox signed copy of this order on the usual undertaking." 19. I am afraid to pass such a decision as it appears that in the case of magma Securities Limited, there was no point taken about the arbitration clause for resolving the dispute, which has been urged herein. Having regard to such, the judgments of the Division Bench whereby security deposit was directed to be refunded in accordance with law has no application in the present case, as herein, the respondent no. 1 has taken a positive stand that there is an arbitration clause to decide the issue. Hence, the writ application is not maintainable in view of existence of alternative speedy and efficacious remedy by arbitration in terms of the bye-laws and writ application is nothing but a money claim seeking refund of the security deposit, which requires adjudication of different factual matrix, which is not possible to decide in the writ application. 20. THE writ application, accordingly, stand dismissed without any order of cost. However, it is made clear that I have not gone into the merits of the case about legality and validity of refund as claimed by the petitioner and the stand as taken to oppose it justifying deduction by the company. Those points are kept open for adjudication by arbitrator.