Judgment :- Joymalya Bagchi, J. This is the second round of litigation by and between the parties. The appellants had challenged the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee dated 7th April, 2009 holding it to be a willful defaulter in terms of Master Circular dated 1st July, 2008 in an earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 7729 (W) of 2009. In the said writ petition the constitutionality of the aforesaid Master Circular dated 1st July, 2008 was also challenged. By order dated 1st September, 2009 this Court set aside the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee. However, the apex Court by order dated 11th December, 1012 set aside the order passed by this Court and held that Master Circular was lawful and constitutional and applied to derivative transactions. It is pertinent to mention that in the pleadings of the earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 7729 (W) of 2009 the appellants had pleaded that it had carried on derivative transactions with the bank. It is also pertinent to mention that in the meantime arbitration proceedings had been initiated at the behest of the respondent bank which resulted in declaration of an award against the appellants. The appellants have challenged such award by taking out an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. After having suffered set back upto the apex Court, the appellants again challenged the finding of the Grievance Redressal Committee in the present writ petition, inter alia, on the premise that there was no derivative transaction had been carried on by the appellants and no liability had crystallised and was payable by the appellants inasmuch as the arbitral award had been challenged and such challenge was pending consideration before the Court of competent jurisdiction. As a result, the award could not be executed in terms of Section 36 of the said Act. Learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appeal. Mr. Banerjee, learned advocate, assisted by Mr. Ray, learned advocate, submitted that Master Circular was not applicable as there was no derivative transaction undertaken by the appellants. It was further submitted that the declaration of willful defaulter prior to disposal of application for setting aside of award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was a premature one inasmuch as liability was unexecutable in law. It was further submitted that the declaration of willful defaulter prior to disposal of application for setting aside of award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was a premature one inasmuch as liability was unexecutable in law. It was also submitted that respondent bank had acted in an arbitrary and unlawful manner. Mr. Kar, learned advocate appearing for respondent bank submitted that contrary stance was taken by the appellants in the earlier writ petition. In the earlier petition, the appellants had pleaded that there was derivative transaction whereas in the present petition it was argued that the transaction was not a derivative transaction. He further submitted that the appellants having willfully and deliberately failed to pay its dues were rightly declared “willful defaulter” and the application for setting aside of the award could not have any impact on such finding. He further submitted that the second writ petition was a malafide attempt on the part of the appellants after the issue had been decided upto the apex Court. We have considered the submissions of the parties. We are of the opinion that the instant writ petition is clearly an abuse of the process of Court inasmuch as the appellants had challenged Master Circular dated 1 st July, 2008 in W.P. No. 7729 (W) of 2009 wherein it had claimed that it had carried on derivative transaction. Having taken such a stance in the earlier writ petition, it did not stand in the mouth of the appellants to claim that the transaction carried on by them was not in the nature of a derivative transaction and Master Circular (which had been held by the apex Court to be applicable to derivative transactions in the earlier writ petition) was not applicable in the instant case. That apart, the other argument that as the arbitral award was challenged under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was unexecutable in law and therefore liability had not crystallised is completely illegal and baseless. Mere challenge to an award does not result in eclipse of liability in respect thereof though the execution of the same may be postponed till disposal of such application for setting aside of award. Mere challenge to an award does not result in eclipse of liability in respect thereof though the execution of the same may be postponed till disposal of such application for setting aside of award. Willful failure to pay dues to respondent bank is the condition precedent for declaration of a constituent as “willful defaulter” and there is nothing in the Master Circular that such declaration must be made after final adjudication of such liability in arbitration or any other legal proceeding. It may be apposite to mention that similar contention raised by the appellants in the earlier writ proceeding had been turned down. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Judge. The appeal and all connected applications are accordingly dismissed. The institution of this proceeding by the appellants after apex Court had upheld the Master Circular in the earlier writ petition by resorting to a contrary stance as to the nature of the transaction is wholly malafide, vexatious and an abuse of the process of Court. Hence, the appellants are directed to pay costs assessed at Rs. 20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) only to the respondent bank.